Posted on September 24th, 2016

This piece was published in Scottish Left Review and is reproduced here by kind permission of the author.

Blues? By Thom Cross

We got the blues! Blue on blue

black n blue: Tory-boyz, Eton-boyz blues.

Where we all lose.

Bad news for folk like me and you just trying to get through :

the lies and the hate from the blue Tory state and their chums in the press spewing a shitty news-mess paid for and sold by corrupt-Tory gold.

By the inches watch them buy lie after lie;

Read the Tory-life of lies In a state where all truth dies

‘Create hate mate!’ Say the pompous and the great

“Create red n blue frustration, demonize immigration: If you don’t look like me there’s leaky boats on the sea."

“Vote Brexit & be proud" shouted loud to drown out the defence of the innocent


Join the Eton chorus Of Bullington Boris “Follow me! Follow me! Brexit is for some of us like ME! T’hell with the economy Fk- the pols and the frogs, the jocks and the Calais nogs".

In Engerland’s blue and unpleasant land! Democracy is a mirage! With Boris, May nfn Farage!

Don’t dance to that band. Let’s have jahzz in our land

The drum beat o fraternity: horns that give us dignity

Wi the bass-strum o solidarity, an the pipes o sovereignty.

Give us stramach ‘n rock n roll! With an honest Celtic soul.

Give us Euro-romance and we’ll hooch n we’ll dance across Europe n France

In a great Ceilidh of joy!

So dance Greek kore n boy; wi garcon n lassie, with zolkie and brahzie

Dance across the Rhone n Rhine in soul an prance in reel-time

and through our heather oh how we’ll dance!

We will dance; dance the gither brother n sister!


Oh what a nonsense that we cannie dance

Ideas leap and birl in this wee country

In reels of thought and dreams

And in the progress of the steps it seems

that in our dance we hope,

for in that step n glance

We choreograph a future.

Justice is our destiny: for this we dance.

Headline Hustlers

Posted on September 19th, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

The Unionist media are very fond of telling us that Scots don’t want a second IndieRef. They were at it again with headlines proclaiming that two-thirds of Scots don’t want another IndieRef until after Brexit.

On the face of it, this is bizarre. Why wait until you have been dragged out of the EU before deciding you might want to do something about it? However, it makes more sense if you read it as stating that two-thirds of scots don’t want another IndieRef until the outcome of the Brexit negotiations is known. That’s because a large section of the Scottish electorate is pretty well informed and engaged in politics. It makes perfect sense to wait until you get confirmation of the details before voting on whether you want to make the sensible decision to abandon England and Wales to their petty xenophobia. Saying you want to wait until you know what Brexit actually entails is not the same thing as saying you don’t want another IndieRef.

The main thing to bear in mind is that we want to hold a second IndieRef when we are pretty certain of winning it. At the moment, too many people are uncertain about what Brexit means in practice. The Scottish Government may well be making discreet enquiries among European diplomats but, until we know whether Scotland is, in fact, to be hauled out of the EU and stuck with eternal Tory rule, there is no point in demanding an IndieRef because a sizable portion of the electorate will still retain doubts. I don’t understand those doubts myself but it would be foolish to ignore them.

As for the screaming headlines, I’ll ignore them too. The media are in a panicked frenzy because they know the tide is turning so they are trying to convince us that most Scots love the union so much they’ll put up with any hardship or indignity as long as they can remain UK citizens. Fortunately, we don’t need to pay attention to the media because we are perfectly capable of making up our own minds. But let’s see the details first.

Normalism v Nationalism

Posted on September 15th, 2016

by Dan Iron

As a supporter of independence for Scotland, I'm always a bit perturbed when we are described as Nationalists. I think to myself, "am I a Nationalist?" I have never thought of myself as one.

One form of Nationalism is thinking that your own country is somehow special, summed up in the phrase, "my country, right or wrong". I do not think Scotland is a special country and I would never describe myself as a "Proud Scot". Scotland has done some great things in the past and some things which are not so great. The people who think that Scotland cannot become an independent country are the ones who think Scotland is special.

Another form of Nationalism is creating a country out of a territory which has never been a nation . An example of this is Italian Nationalism in the 19th Century or, more recently, Quebec Nationalism.

A slightly different form of Nationalism is re-creating a country - recovering the national status of a territory which is currently a province of a larger country. An example of this is Breton Nationalism.

None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is a country and has been a country for a long time, whether you take the formation of Scotland as 843 with Kenneth MacAlpin as King, or 1018 when the Lothians were joined to Scotland, or 1320 with our explicit declaration of independence, or 1472 when Orkney and Shetland became part of Scotland. Scotland's borders have been unchanged since 1482 after the final capture of Berwick-upon-Tweed by England. By retaining our own systems of law, education and church at the time of the Union in 1707 we expressed our intention to remain a country. There are many countries around the world who would envy our long history and stable borders.

So what is the correct expression for a country taking responsibility for its own governance, like normal countries do? Ah yes, normal. The ideology which underpins our position as Scottish Independentistas is simply that - Normalism. The belief that your country is best served by effectively outsourcing its governance to a body outside your own country is not normal. This is not a nationalistic point - Scots are not inherently better than other nationalities in running a country. But would it not be best to have your country run by people who have a direct and personal interest in the success of the enterprise? Would you not want them to have “skin in the game"? To outsource the governance of Scotland to Westminster is simply irrational. To hand responsibility to the bunch of incompetents currently in the UK Cabinet is the height of folly.

So that is the term that defines us best - Normalism. This expression avoids any false dichotomy between so called hard Nationalists and those who want independence to create a more socially just society. We can be favour of independence because that's normal, not nationalistic. And we can all be in favour of a more just society - I haven't yet met any independence supporter who wants a less just society.

This approach not only helps to define our position - it also helps to define our opponents’ position. For those who do not think Scotland is a country, to those who believe that their country is the United Kingdom, we simply have to respectfully agree to differ. There is nothing to be gained by conversing with them. We’d be wasting our time.

To those who believe that Scotland is a country but that it should not be independent we should ask them why. Why can Scotland not be normal? What is the difference between Scotland and all the other countries in the world? It puts the onus on them to justify their position, rather than on us to justify ours.

This leaves those who are open to the possibility of Scotland being independent but who are not convinced of the economic case, or those who worry about their own jobs or livelihood. This is where we have to do a lot more work to convince them. We simply have to make a better case than we made last time and I believe that we can make that better case. This will be the subject of a future blog.

So when the day comes when the Saltire is unfurled at the United Nations my heart won't be surging with patriotic fervour. I'll just have the quiet satisfaction that Scotland will have achieved its destiny by becoming a normal country.

Just a normal country.

Broken System

Posted on September 13th, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

I heard a couple of interesting things this morning. The first was a podcast on the history of the Labour Party in Scotland which was very balanced if a bit rambling at times. It reminded me that the reason Labour did so well in Scotland for so long was that, in the immediate post-war decades, the Labour Party did a lot of good for Scotland in terms of inward investment, promotion of industry, social housing, etc. This was achieved through their system of using the levers of the British State to benefit the working classes, which is exactly what Labour were originally founded to achieve.

Of course, it all began to go horribly wrong for Labour and for Scotland with the industrial conflicts and turmoil of the 1970s and the advent of Thatcherism. Since then, the economies of UK regions outside of the South East of England have been sacrificed for the benefit of that wealthy corner of these Sceptred Isles and Scotland has suffered as a result.

The reaction has been slow in coming but Devolution and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament were a step on the road towards increased voter recognition that the system which had provided such enormous social advantages, including the formation of the NHS among other things, was no longer working in their interests. As this recognition spread, the fortunes of Labour waned until we reach the current situation where they can only muster third place in the Scottish elections.

The simple message here is that people can recognise when a system is not working to their advantage. When they see that the system is working against them rather than for them, they tend to react. The Labour Party in Scotland has, however, clung to its attachment to the UK because the system worked forty years ago and they seem unable to throw off the shackles of that attachment.

However, the second thing I heard was that there has been another poll on Scottish independence and that a majority of Scots would still prefer to remain part of the UK even after the Brexit fiasco which threatens to strip away many of their rights. The poll shows only a slight increase in support for Indie which is statistically insignificant although, according to some comments I’ve seen, there are some issues with the Polling data, not least of which is that 16 and 17 year-olds were not polled.

However, what this all suggests is that far too many Scots are still so attached to the UK that they would prefer to stay within a system which demonstrably takes advantage of them and penalises them. Pensioners, in particular, seem content to receive the second lowest Pension in the EU because they have grown up being British and cannot bear to vote against the UK no matter how much harm it intends to do to them. Talk about turkeys and Christmas!

These contrasting experiences present a conundrum. Like most people in Scotland, I grew up under a system of government which, for all its many faults, generally worked for the benefit of the majority of working people but which increasingly turned away from that model. It is one thing to be content to be governed under a model which broadly works but there comes a time when you need to realise that the system is not operating properly. Sadly, it seems a great many people have not yet reached that stage. That means we have a huge task on our hands if we are to persuade people that if something is broken, we should try to fix it instead of accepting that nothing can be done.

We know nothing can be done if we remain in the UK because the Tories are rigging election boundaries to ensure they remain in power for the foreseeable future. Scotland’s MPs are already struggling to exert any influence at Westminster but Scotland, together with Wales, stands to lose proportionally more MPs than England under the proposed boundary changes, a situation which will reduce our already minimal influence even further.

Living in a post-Brexit UK under Tory rule isn’t going to make things better for the majority of people but that message still isn’t getting through to a great many of them. Which means that the calls for a second IndieRef as soon as possible are perhaps a bit premature because we cannot afford to lose again. The Brexit vote has perhaps forced our hand on this but, unless we can alter a lot of minds, we will be condemned to sticking with the UK for years to come. We need to keep telling people the UK system isn’t working and that the only possible solution is to escape it and become a normal country.

Bordering On Ridiculous

Posted on September 11th, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Ruth “Don’t Talk about a 2nd IndieRef" Davidson has been … er, talking about a 2nd IndieRef while assuring us that we don’t need or want one. She has a strange obsession with this topic but that’s probably because she’s trying to divert attention away from the Tory-engineered brexit fiasco. Devoid of any ideas, her only tactics are to bang on about an IndieRef and to laugh while her Press Office issues xenophobic comments about EU citizens who reside in Scotland. Her refusal to apologise for claiming that an EU citizen has no right to comment on political matters in Scotland shows just how the Tories intend to treat EU nationals once the UK formally leaves the EU.

An independent Scotland could avoid this fate but Ruth, while insisting we don’t want a second IndieRef, is nevertheless going out of her way to fight that referendum already. As part of this campaign which she says we don’t want, she’s recently made a bizarre point about trade and borders and, as you’d expect, the media has simply repeated her assertions without bothering to apply even the most basic journalistic scrutiny. So, since the media won’t do it, here’s a quick look at the issues.

The Ruth Davidson Party is pushing the line that an independent Scotland which remained a part of the EU would face enormous difficulties trading with England since a hard border would need to be imposed, with all the difficulties that implies, along with trade tariffs which would present hassle and increased costs for Scottish businesses.

If this sounds familiar, that’s because it is the same claim that was made during the first IndieRef but with the positions reversed because, at that time, we were assured that Scotland would be kicked out of the EU while England and the Rest of the UK would remain members. How times change! Yet note how the Unionist arguments remain unaltered.

But is there any chance of this happening? Well, yes, there is a chance but there are a few things Ruth is not telling us.

For starters, the UK’s Brexit Minister, David Davies, has been assuring people in Ireland that the border will remain open whatever happens with the brexit negotiations. Now, there is a chance there will be no Irish border if Northern Ireland decides to become part of the Republic but it seems unlikely a Tory like Davies would be contemplating that scenario since it involves losing a part of Westminster’s dominion. Which leaves the situation that either Davies or Ruth Davidson is talking a load of rubbish. Either there are hard borders or there are not. The only justification for keeping the Irish border open and imposing a hard border between England and Scotland would be sheer perversity which would harm English businesses as much as it would harm Scottish ones. Can you imagine how English Pubs would cope if their supplies of Scotch whisky were interrupted or became suddenly more expensive?

Not that a hard border is impermeable. Trading would continue, it would just mean people adjusting to a new regime of paperwork and potential delay. But nations trade with one another all the time and, in practice, the biggest issue is likely to be tariffs which would probably be applied to imports and exports between an EU and a non-EU country, thus increasing costs for businesses and consumers on both sides of the border.

But the really big thing Ruth ignores is that the EU is not likely to play ball with RUK. Westminster politicians fondly believe that the UK (for which read England in their minds) has only to tell the EU what it wants and the EU will gladly cooperate. That is sheer fantasy. Most Tory politicians and journalists don’t seem to understand that access to the European Single Market requires allowing the free movement of people and capital as well as goods. Since keeping foreigners out of the UK was one of the prime motivations behind the brexit vote, it is impossible for the Tories to negotiate any alternative method of accessing the Single Market since the EU has repeatedly said this is non-negotiable.

Which means that either the Tories will back down and allow free movement of people in order to retain open trading or they will stick to their guns and lose free access to the Single Market in order to satisfy the xenophobic demands of their voters.

In the first scenario, open trading will continue and there will be no hard border between Scotland and England because the EU won’t allow it. In the second scenario, there would indeed be a hard border but there would also need to be one between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, as well as England and Wales finding they had hard borders in terms of trade and travel with every other EU member State. So, while Scotland might have a problem until it adjusts its economy to increase direct trade with the EU, it is England and Wales which would face the far larger problem of having no open trade borders with any of its neighbours.

What Ruth Davidson is effectively telling us is that, if Scotland votes to become independent in a 2nd IndieRef and remain in the EU, the RUK will cut off its nose to spite its face and enter a phase of economic and trade isolation. The BritNats fondly believe it is Scotland that will suffer the most from this because they are convinced RUK will be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries very swiftly. However, comments from several officials from other countries, notably Australia, have strongly suggested this is wishful thinking on the part of the UK Government. Formal trade deals aimed at reducing tariffs and bureaucratic barriers can take several years to negotiate. This means that RUK businesses will face issues with all imports and exports while an independent Scotland will face similar issues if trading with England and Wales but will find no such issues in its trade with the rest of the EU. Indeed, since the EU has already negotiated trade deals with other countries, Scotland’s international trade will continue as normal with every country in the world except England and Wales.

In practice, of course, hard borders are not insurmountable. Switzerland is not in the EU but manages to trade with other EU nations without too many problems. The border between Canada and the USA is a hard one but the two countries carry out a huge amount of trade. Having hard borders probably won’t affect either Scotland or England as much as the Project Fear mongers like to make out. An open border would obviously be preferable in terms of trade but a hard border, while presenting some potentially serious obstacles until a formal trade agreement is reached, won’t be a catastrophe. It certainly won’t be as bad as remaining in a post-Brexit UK and having your Human Rights abolished, having Workers’ Rights abolished, living under a Government committed to perpetual Austerity economics, having the NHS privatised (and that will come to Scotland as the funding from Westminster dries up), seeing the imposition of the Investigatory Powers Bill, seeing foreign nationals, including EU citizens, expelled, and seeing Scotland’s economy held back while our elected MPs continue to be ignored by the ruling Westminster Government. Quite frankly, I’d be happy to have border controls between Scotland and England if it meant being freed from that lot.

Did EU Know This?

Posted on September 8th, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

My recent article about the conflation by the Tories of the two Unions of which Scotland is currently a member produced some interesting feedback. Most of this was very positive but Twitter user Smoo pointed out that I had omitted some areas where the EU imposes control over its member states. Now, even if he is correct, I’m not sure that this invalidates the argument I was trying to make, that Westminster controls Scotland far more completely than the EU controls its member states but Smoo certainly gave me a couple of things to think about and I thought it worth highlighting the issues because they aren’t problems I was aware of.

I did invite Smoo to write an article which I offered to publish but he claimed this would be a waste of time since the Yes movement is only interested in removing Tories and not in the wider issues. I must take issue with this because, although removing the Tories is a main objective of the Yes movement, it is not the primary one. For example, if Labour had won the last General Election, the UK would be slightly different from its current situation but that would not prevent the Yes movement wanting independence for Scotland. Our primary aim is to have Scotland governed by a Government of its own choice, not to have voters in England decide who will rule our country. The fact that England generally votes Tory is one reason why there is a growing gulf between the two countries but there is absolutely no reason why an independent Scotland could not elect its own Tory Government, no matter how unlikely that may seem at present. The issue is that, if such a Government were elected and then enacted policies the people of Scotland did not like, they would be able to vote them out at the next election. This choice is currently denied us.

However, as I mentioned, my discussion with Smoo did show up some interesting points, so let’s take a look at them.

In particular, he mentioned that the EU control what is known as the Trans European Transport Network and that things like, for example, HS2, are part of this imposed infrastructure development which aims to enable high speed rail all across Europe. According to Smoo, and a website he directed me to, the UK is not in charge of HS2 but is being compelled to construct it by the EU under the TETN project which means the UK must build and pay for HS2 even though the EU is directing the development. That article can be read at:

Now, a couple of things strike me as odd about this. The first is that, if the claims are correct, why did the Brexit politicians not mention this during the EURef campaign? I suppose one could argue that they were too lazy and stupid to do anything other than invent scare stories but I think that is being too harsh even on such an incompetent crowd of charlatans. If there was a genuine case of the EU imposing something on the UK and forcing the UK to pay for it, you’d have thought they’d have shouted it from the rooftops. But no. It wasn’t mentioned at all.

The second odd thing is that this alleged pan-European transport network isn’t coming as far as Scotland despite the fact that we are still in the EU at the moment. This suggests to me that the UK Government does have some control over HS2. Smoo argued that HS3 and HS4 would see the line extended and perhaps that is the intention but whether it is an intention driven by EU imperatives, I am not so sure.

The other comment I would make is that the website quoted is unashamedly anti-EU. There’s nothing wrong with that but the site does appear to harbour a few conspiracy theorists among its contributors.

I did some searching of my own and could not locate anything from the EU which supports the claims made in the first article. Indeed, the following suggests that, while TETN is a genuine project, the EU provides funding to assist the developments, that these are not restricted to high speed rail and that national Governments are consulted and involved in the projects.

Of course, one would not expect the EU to openly flaunt the fact that it is overriding national Governments in matters of infrastructure development so, to be honest, I have ended up a bit better informed but not really near reaching a definitive conclusion on the scope of TETN. If anyone has any more definitive info, please do let me know. I don’t yet share Smoo’s belief in its power to override national Governments but I’m keeping an open mind until I can learn a bit more.

The other thing that bothered Smoo was the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon which is, according to his interpretation, intended to do away with national borders and create a European State with its own institutions such as a European Army.

To be fair, many people have raised concerns about the impact of the treaty of Lisbon. I’m no expert on EU constitutional matters but I’ve done a bit of reading over the past few days and can say that opinions seem divided on the intent and scope of the Lisbon Treaty.

The Treaty was apparently designed to reformulate the EU’s constitution which was viewed as out of date given the expansion of the organisation. There is no doubt that, from one perspective, it can be interpreted as being an attempt to move towards the creation of a European Super State. In particular, the intention to create an EU Foreign Minister was regarded as potentially stripping sovereignty from member states. This proposal was slightly watered down but the post of EU High Representative, which is effectively the same position with a fancy title, was created.

There is no doubt that there is a drive for greater integration within the EU and it may well be that the Treaty of Lisbon represents the latest step in a gradual “mission creep" sort of incorporation of member states into a Borg-like collective. However, I remain sceptical that the practical implications are anywhere near reaching that stage yet. The Lisbon Treaty certainly means that countries will not be able to block new laws which can be passed by majority rather than unanimous vote but that’s actually pretty normal in most democratic organisations anyway. Whether this constitutes a Super-State, is debatable.

There are a couple of reasons for my current scepticism. For example, can anyone name the current EU High Representative who is acting like a Foreign Minister and usurping the roles of member states’ national Foreign Ministers? I certainly couldn’t and I had to Google to learn that her name is Federica Mogherini. She’s certainly kept a low profile so far and doesn’t appear to have upstaged any national Foreign Minister despite being presented with the easy target of Boris Johnson who could be upstaged by just about anyone. For what it is worth, my own cynical view of many of the outcomes of the Treaty of Lisbon are that much of it was simply to create more jobs for the boys and girls who work within the system. That is reason enough for outrage since our money is paying for them but I’m not yet convinced it denotes a seizure of sovereignty.

But the main reason I don’t believe we will see the creation of a Super-State any time soon is that national interests will prove intractable. Europe, for better or worse, is comprised of many different nationalities, with people speaking many different languages and having diverse cultures. It is great that the EU has brought a period of peace and cooperation but I don’t yet see that any member State will voluntarily surrender all its sovereignty to some monster EU State. For one thing, national politicians will want to preserve their own roles and status. Even if they didn’t, the ordinary citizens of various European countries have been very vocal in their desire to remain independent within the framework of European cooperation. There is already evidence of tension in those countries which are suffering economic problems as a result of using the Euro and this is producing an anti-EU backlash in countries like Italy where there is a growing feeling that, while they are happy to remain in the EU, they would love to ditch the Euro. Given this growing hostility, I can’t believe citizens will readily agree to wholly renounce their national status to become citizens of a Greater Europe. In fact, we have seen that recent history suggests a greater willingness on the part of smaller nations to proclaim their independence – Scotland excepted – while being willing to cooperate with their neighbours as part of the EU.

Having said that, my investigation has at least prompted me to be more aware of any gradual power grab by the EU and it is certainly something I’ll be watching out for. I don’t think the situation is as bad as Smoo fears and I genuinely believe most nations will veer away from any formal integration which denies them self-government. Surrendering some elements of sovereignty to the EU to gain the benefits of trade, travel and cooperation is not the same as surrendering full sovereignty. There are no doubt some within the EU who would love to create a super-state but, equally, there are plenty who recognise that individual member states cannot be squeezed into a one size fits all box and that a federal approach is the best way to ensure a (broadly) mutually beneficial arrangement.

There is, though, one thing I do agree with Smoo on. He is generally pro-Indie and he dislikes the idea of elitism. I’m in broad agreement with that although I am realistic enough to know elitism cannot be eradicated. What we can do about it is narrow the gap between those at the top and the general public and ensure that our politicians know to whom they are answerable. Having wealth and status should not mean that one is treated any differently to anyone else. Everyone deserves basic respect and my hope is that an independent Scotland will move away from the elitist class structure which is so evident in the UK.

Finally, to return to my original point, if Smoo and I disagree on the detail of how an independent Scotland should be run and whether it should remain in the EU, that is fine. If we had full control over our country, we could vote for Parties which represented our own particular views. That, unlike the absurd situation Scotland is in just now, is proper democracy.

A Tale of Two Unions

Posted on September 4th, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

The Tories, as you would expect, have united behind the Brexit banner. That’s because the Tories are more concerned with retaining power than with the welfare of the country they are supposed to govern or its citizens. In keeping with this new zeal for UK independence, they are already trotting out the usual propaganda aimed at winning the next Scottish IndyRef which, coincidentally, they insist isn’t necessary.

David “Fluffy" Mundell was the latest to repeat the mantra that the best Union for Scotland is with the UK, not the union with the EU. This, of course, is a gross over-simplification of the situation aimed at influencing people who don’t bother to think beyond a headline. The fact that Scotland is currently within two Unions allows the Tories (including their allies, Labour and the Lib Dems) to conflate the term “Union" as if there is a direct comparison between the two. This is complete nonsense.

The EU is a trading union which also involves an element of political and financial union depending on whether a country uses the Euro and on what other deals it may have made for membership. Yes, the EU has its faults because all large organisations do. There is no doubt waste, bureaucracy and very probably some corruption but the EU does not wield the same sort of control over any member state that matches the control Westminster has over Scotland. Even Greece retains control over some areas of government in which Scotland must defer to the UK.

For example, the EU does not:

set our rates of tax;

Order our armed forces into conflicts;

Tell us we must retain nuclear weapons;

decide on levels of Social Security payments;

Control our monetary policy;

control our economic policy;

set laws on any areas outside those within its remit, e.g. trade & competition and Human Rights.

It is the UK Government which does all of these things and, in most cases, does them rather poorly. So the real question is whether it would be better to remain part of the UK and be controlled by Westminster, or should we go our own way and stick with the EU?

As mentioned above, the EU certainly has flaws. TTIP is probably the biggest threat it presents to our society. Nobody in their right minds thinks TTIP is a good idea. Fortunately, people appear to be seeing sense and the latest rumours from within the EU suggest that the deal might collapse. That can only be good news since the UK Government has declined to exclude public services from the scope of TTIP as currently envisaged. And that fact should serve as a warning because, assuming the UK leaves the EU and Scotland remains part of the UK, does anyone seriously believe the Tories would not sign up to a TTIP deal with the USA at the drop of a hat? TTIP’s entire premise is that it places the rights of global corporations over those of any civil authority. This is precisely the sort of society the Tories are attempting to build in the UK.

As for the much-vaunted cost of EU membership, member countries do pay their fee and receive investment funds in return, thus reducing the level of overall financial commitment. It does not, as the UK does to Scotland, take every penny and then hand back an amount which Westminster deems appropriate. Don’t be fooled by the new tax powers which are to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. These are very limited and the taxes will still, in practice, be collected by HMRC and then handed back. Whether anyone within the Scottish Government will be allowed to check and verify that the amount being handed back is accurate isn’t clear.

There is no doubt that, whatever Scotland does, it will face issues and problems. That’s life. There is no country in the world that doesn’t face problems of some sort. It is having the ability to deal with those problems that makes the difference to society. It is well known that, politically, Scotland has a very different attitude to England in how society should operate. The Tories have demonstrated their desire to punish the Disabled and Unemployed and there is no reason to believe they will not continue down this route, especially under Theresa May who will no doubt soon demonstrate that she is the most Right Wing Prime Minister the UK has ever had. If you doubt that claim, consider the Investigatory Powers Bill which she champions and which will give the UK Government the right to intercept and read every email, text or other transmitted message by any citizen. May has already instituted secret courts where people can be tried without being told what the charges are, without seeing any evidence against them, and without being able to present any defence. Big Brother is coming and that should scare us all.

But it is not only the ideology that is different. One of the other claims the Tories like Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale like to make is that the Scottish Government isn’t concentrating on its main job of running the country. It is a claim which doesn’t stack up when you look at the statistics. It is true that the Scottish Government makes mistakes and certainly doesn’t get everything right but can you name any Government that ever has got everything right? When you consider some details, though, it becomes apparent that, in the areas where the Scottish Government has control, things are a lot better than they are in England.

NHS Scotland is, by every measure, performing better than any other NHS in the UK and patient satisfaction levels are at an all time high;

Crime is at its lowest level for forty years;

Scotland has the best educated workforce of any country in the OECD;

Scotland is the only country in the world which holds the Carbon Trust’s triple Standard Certification for carbon, water & waste reduction.

Yet in every area where Westminster retains control, we see incompetence and a distinct lack of interest. According to the UK’s own figures which they supply to the Scottish Government to produce the infamous GERS figures, Scotland has the worst economy of any country in the OECD. This is despite 308 years of management by Westminster and despite Scotland possessing an enormous wealth of resources. Something, somewhere, isn’t working within this Union.

Nobody is claiming life will be easy as an independent country but surely it would be better to take control of every lever of our economy. We certainly couldn’t make a worse job of it than Westminster has done.

Then, as we adjust to life as a normal country, we’ll also be able to wave to our fellow holidaymakers from England when we jet off to Spain and breeze through the EU Citizens’ border channel while they queue up to present their visas.

Offensive Behaviour Required

Posted on September 2nd, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

this blog is unashamedly pro-Indie but that doesn’t mean we can’t criticise the SNP and there is currently a growing feeling on social media that the Scottish Government is failing to keep its promise to promote the case for independence.

Take GERS as an example. Anyone who has done the slightest bit of research knows these figures are questionable at best, being a series of guesses and estimates based on figures supplied exclusively by Westminster Governmental Departments. The actual raw data is kept secret. But even if GERS figures are accurate, the only thing they prove is that Scotland’s economy is being seriously mismanaged by Westminster. For a country with the resources that Scotland possesses to be allegedly the poorest in the OECD surely must suggest that whoever is in charge of its economy is either incompetent or malign.

Yet these points are being left to the Alternative media and amateur bloggers to point out. The SNP barely say a word about them. Why?

OK, it must be admitted that the BBC and other media would probably suppress or, at best, play down any such statement because it would not fit the Unionist agenda of keeping Scots in ignorance but surely the more noise the SNP make about this sort of thing, the more some people might start to listen.

GERS isn’t the only instance of SNP reticence. The Named Persons legislation has been strongly defended on social media and in many blogs but all we hear in the public forum from the SNP are a few bland statements.

Now, we all know the media will always do their best to censor any claim which contradicts their Unionist message but we need all guns blazing if we are to win the next IndyRef. So far, the SNP have, in public at least, been well off the pace. Blogs and Alternative media sites are constantly highlighting the lies and misinformation being spread by the Mainstream media but there seems to be a strange acceptance within the SNP that the media cannot be challenged. Perhaps there is a good reason for this strategy but, from the perspective of the online Yessers, it is very frustrating because we feel there is still a huge percentage of Scots who are not being properly informed of what is going on and are, instead, being influenced by UK State propaganda.

Isn’t it about time the SNP went on the offensive?

Interesting Figures

Posted on August 25th, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Proud Scots all across the country have been celebrating the apparent impoverishment of their nation and its alleged reliance on handouts from its larger southern neighbour. It really is rather sad to see how happy some people are that their country is apparently an economic basket case after 308 years of Westminster rule. The solution to this problem is, it seems, to continue to allow Westminster to mismanage Scotland’s economy to ensure that … er, … Scotland remains the poorest country in the Western world.

Much has been written about GERS by people who are far better qualified than me but I’ve gleaned a few pertinent details on the latest figures which I thought it might be useful to bring together, acknowledging that this information comes from other people who have actually taken the time to check through the figures. I did that once a couple of years ago and ended up with a thumping headache so I’m going to let others do the hard work this time.

The main thing to remember is that GERS is a collection of guesses and estimates, often using out of date data. Even if those guesses and estimates somehow proved accurate which seems unlikely given the track record of UK Government agencies in making accurate forecasts, GERS would still only show a snapshot of Scotland’s finances as part of the Union. It has absolutely no relation to how the finances would look if Scotland were an independent country with full control over all the economic levers available to normal governments. As such, its only real purpose is to show how inept and incompetent the UK Government is at managing Scotland’s economy. It might also be worth considering why no other “regions" within the UK have similar figures produced. Could it be that Westminster wants to keep telling Scots how pathetic they are in order to keep them under control? And why would they do that if Scotland really was such a drain on the mighty UK? You’d think they’d dump us in order to save themselves some money but apparently they are so kind-hearted they’d rather keep subsidising us. It is worth bearing in mind that the UK has used this tactic for centuries, warning colonies that they could never cope on their own and must therefore remain under UK control. A certain nation known as the United States of America was the first to stick two fingers up to this idea and go its own way. On the whole, they haven’t done too badly.

But back to GERS and the latest set of figures. There are a few interesting statistics.

North Sea Oil revenue fell 97%. This was so devastating to the oil-reliant Scotland that GDP fell a whopping 0.45%. What? But that actually suggests Scotland’s economy is not reliant on oil which we all know is nonsense because the media keep telling us Scotland has no other business sectors worth a damn. Odd, isn’t it that the dramatic failure of our major source of income resulted in almost no change to the country’s GDP? It’s almost as if Unionist politicians and the media have been lying to us.

The expenditure allocated to Scotland also shows some odd figures.

Transport is a devolved matter, so Scotland pays all of its own transport infrastructure costs such as the building of the new Forth Crossing, the Borders railway and the upgrading of the A9. However, we also, according to GERS, are deemed to contribute to “National" transport projects. “National" in this sense meaning projects in the rest of the UK, predominantly London. For example, Scotland is deemed to pay a share of upgrading and maintaining London Underground, developing the London CrossRail link and taking a share of HS2 development costs. The allocated share for this has risen from £181m in 2014/15 to £427m in 2015/16. That’s an increase of 136%. What it covers isn’t revealed but what is known is that none of these costs would accrue to an independent Scotland.

Scotland’s deemed share of International Services was £839m. this has reportedly increased by £200m in the past three years. what for? We don’t know. Perhaps it’s all those UK embassies hosting parties to promote Scottish exports – except that we know they have been told not to do that so why the costs are escalating is anybody’s guess.

The allocated cost of Science & Technology rose by £64m to £494m. That’s an increase of 13% but it’s not clear what it’s for because Universities and Researchers are complaining that their funding is being cut. Odd, isn’t it? Westminster is imposing cuts on all Governmental Departments but Scotland’s share of this cost has increased at a rate several times the rate of inflation.

Those are just a handful of examples and I haven’t even covered the cost of Trident or building massive aircraft carriers which don’t have any planes, or the costs of bombing Syria in order to persuade Syrians to stay at home and not flee here. But, quite frankly, I can’t be bothered going into it any further. Anyone who believes GERS is an impartial and accurate assessment of Scotland’s finances is looking at them through Union Jack tinted spectacles and seems oblivious to the fact that there are plenty of independent countries in Europe who are managing fine even in these difficult economic times and who don’t have the great burden of oil on top of their other woes. Of course, most of them probably have other major sectors like tourism, Scotch whisky, salmon and beef, computer games and biomedical research. Perhaps Scotland would cope better if it had things like that.

Flagging Fruits

Posted on August 23rd, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

The summer silly season has not stopped the flow of hyperbolic SNPBad stories even though most of them have been easily proven false or simply laughable. Now, though, the silly stories seem to have switched sides as it is the Yes movement getting itself all hot and bothered by the revelation that Tesco have removed the Saltire from the packaging of their strawberries and replaced it with the Union Jack because they had received some complaints from consumers in England about the fruit bearing Scotland’s flag. It is not clear whether the people making the complaints also objected to the flags of other countries like France and Italy being displayed on imported goods. If they were Brexiteers, that is a distinct possibility but the inference seems to be that the complaints stem from a belief that Scotland is simply a region of the UK and so should not have its flag displayed in England.

Before you get too worked up about this, it is worth reminding pro-Indie Scots about their outrage when news broke that the Union Jack was to be printed on Driving Licences, placed on bridges and even displayed on the packaging of Tunnock’s teacakes. Dislike of another country’s flag obviously isn’t the exclusive preserve of the Unionists.

However, it should be pointed out that Tunnock’s at least had the good sense to place the Union Jack on packaging for the English market, thereby showing that they at least recognise the potential marketing impact of displaying it in Scotland. Tesco seems to have adopted the “One Nation" approach so beloved by the Tories and I suspect they’ll see a corresponding decrease in sales of strawberries in their Scottish stores.

All of which is a bit silly on both sides but the whole saga serves to demonstrate just how emotive symbols can be, especially in today’s so-called United Kingdom. The constitutional fabric of the UK is slowly unravelling and this latest spat is a small indicator of the widening gulf between Scotland and England.

Drowning in Murder

Posted on August 12th, 2016

With swimming being one of the main features of the Olympics just now and following on from our piece on why athletes cannot rely on UK funding to help them, here’s a timely piece on swimming. It is an extract from a novel titled, “Drowning in Murder" by Thom Cross.

Life ain’t easy when yu ain’t winnin’

Life is lonesome without good women

Life ain’t sweet when they ain’t willin’

Life don’t smile, if yu ain’t sinnin’

Life turns sad if yu ain’t singin’

And Life is Death if yu ain’t swim

For swimmin’ is Life,

is better than a lovin’ wife

Swimmin, lord, I can’t get enough

Swimmin’ is sweeter than makin’ love.

The whole bar sang the chorus with all the gusto and irony that forty pairs of young swimmers’ lungs could muster. The song was led by Big Dennis, our sprint king, who had learned the song and others swimming for Arizona State University on a swimming-scholarship. He was chuffed, real proud for making the Scottish team to Jamaica, the land of his father. His mother, ironically, was from just across the Jamaica Bridge in the Gorbals.

We were not very far away either, singing to our success in a friendly wee pub next to the team’s hotel, tucked away in the centre of Glasgow.

The whole Scottish team was assembled for the Commonwealth Swimming Championship’s training camp. This was the ‘first night’, the icebreaker and the last night of the ‘nights-oot’. There were more pints of orange juice than beer as we all knew there was plenty pressure coming soon. Many of the faces gathered in this low-ceilinged, smoked-filled cellar of this howf were familiar from galas and training camps over the years. This was my first full Scottish cap and my eyes moistened at the ceremony of welcome, the camaraderie and the pride of representing Scotland.

It should have been my Granda sitting here, receiving praise and plaudits, sharing my pride. It was the wee man who should have been here feeling the warmth, basking in the overwhelming sense of victory and satisfaction of being part of a Scottish team. For it was ma Granda who taught me Scotland. Aye, Granda, it should have been you.

For it was the wee man in his bunnet who would wrap me up in the winter months and walk with me down the street, down the Peth along the lang Kirkcaldy prom and its biting, snell North Sea wind, tae the baths. It was the wee man with the broad miner’s shoulders, the ex-boxer, who talked with me about the great days of Wilkie and Black and McGregor. How as a laudie he had only the dirty, cork- filled water of the Kirkcaldy harbour to swim in, and how I have a chance he and his generation never had. If only I keep trying hard, keep trying hard and punch away.

He would sing the Lauder anthem, ‘Keep right on till the end of the road’, as we had to walk it up the long brae, for the busfare was no there.

The pits had closed and he hadnae found the jannie’s job yet. How, when I went to my first few galas at aged six or seven he would stan’ up in the stand and shout for me in his big boxer’s baritone until the coughing started and he couldnie shout any mare and his jannie’s pay packet had to stretch for my club fees and fins and kick-boards and track suit until he was able to talk tae a man he kent on the council, thro the union, who found a wee grant tae gi him tae help oot a bit, especially aifter he retired and it was me and him on the pension and me wantin’ brand name gear like the ither yins at the high shool where the auld toffs and the new professionals sent their children in their ain cars but I had ti run ma papers in the morning, then run up the hill through the den to school an run hame again at denner time and back again and hame again and then run doon tae the baths and then try and run hame again aifter trainin.

It wasnie until I was big-thirteen or fourteen before I could manage that bloody brae and he always had hot tasty food on the table, every meal, especially soup fur it was guid for me and even the night I qualified, right here in Glesgie, he was there up in the stands, no able to shout at awe noo, but a pal, who had gin ’im a lift thro, had leant him a horn to squeeze and make noise, like the noise in this pub, noo.

As I attempted to casually, secretly, flick at the tears of remembrance. I quickly blamed the smoke. For the truth, especially hard family truths in the Scotland I knew, were not for telling but for feeling

If you would like to read more, the e-book is available from Amazon at:


Posted on August 9th, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

The “Too wee, too poor, too stupid" argument takes many forms. Its latest manifestation is a claim that Scottish athletes going to the Olympics as part of Team GB have benefited from being part of a larger nation, with the clear inference that they wouldn’t have managed to get there without the help of the UK.

Now, there is an element of truth to this but, as with so many Unionist arguments, it is revealed as absurd when examined more closely.

For a start, there are athletes from a great many countries competing in Rio. Most of them got there without help from the UK. Indeed, former colonies such as Jamaica have managed to produce world class athletes without any assistance from the UK. For example, it seems unlikely that Yusain Bolt could have won any more medals than he has done already if Jamaica had still been ruled from Westminster.

When it comes to small nations, countries like Finland and Slovakia have produced athletes who have won Olympic medals and larger but poorer countries like Ethiopia and Kenya still churn out world class competitors. This suggests that neither population size nor a country’s wealth has much to do with the calibre of athletes that country produces. Naturally, a country with a higher population is likely to produce more athletes of the required standard to compete in the Olympics but that is not at all the same thing as saying Scottish athletes could not get there without help from the UK.

but let’s look at that help. Like all organisations, the British Olympic team has to make choices about where to spend its money. There is no doubt that many of the Scottish athletes will have benefitted in some way from UK funding but that funding tends to go to sports where there has already been an element of success. For example, Table Tennis gets very little in comparison to other sports because Britain hasn’t produced any medal winners in Table Tennis. This reveals the different priorities. For the athletes, it is taking part that counts but the money men in charge concentrate only on medals and they do it in such a way that the medals need to come first. In other words, if Britain were to produce a Gold medal at Table Tennis, that sport would receive more funding next time round but the medal needs to come first. This means athletes have to do it more or less on their own before the British Olympic team steps in with greater financial assistance.

Even for those sports which do receive assistance, most of the athletes who are out there representing the UK will have reached their current level of ability largely through their own dedication, natural ability, sponsorship money, and significant help from friends and family rather than financial assistance from the UK’s Olympic team.

It cannot be denied that UK funding will have helped Scottish athletes but the extent to which it has made the difference between them reaching a qualifying standard or not making the grade is difficult to quantify. Above all, the claim that they are only there because of UK funding implies that an independent Scotland would be too wee and too poor to provide similar financial support. This is perhaps the worst aspect of this sort of argument because it implicitly assumes that Scotland would be unable to match the achievements of other small nations when it comes to producing athletes. As ever, putting your country down seems to be the aim of those people promoting this line of thought and that is the saddest thing about it.

Hit For Six

Posted on August 3rd, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Scotland must be the only country in the world where there is any debate over whether it should produce its own News programme. That is, of course, a symptom of the One Nation attitude of the BBC and the unionist media. Quite frankly, though, it doesn’t really matter because a Scottish Six (as it is usually known) won’t be much good anyway.

There are a couple of reasons for this even if we discount the ludicrous claims by the likes of David Torrance and others that, and I paraphrase here, Scots are not genetically programmed to operate difficult machinery like television cameras and would be incapable of producing a News programme.

No, the practical difficulty is that BBC Scotland is ultimately controlled from London. Without its own network of dedicated news crews and equipment, it will rely on BBC London to provide many of its international and UK reports. Unless there is a massive boost in funding and BBC Scotland is given complete autonomy, the News will still be largely local with everything else being beamed in from London.

Then there is the political angle. The simple fact is that the BBC do not want a Scottish Six to succeed. The BBC is part of the UK State and promotes the UK at every opportunity. If BBC Scotland were to successfully produce an independent News show which genuinely provided Scottish and international news from a Scottish perspective, it would completely undermine the BBC’s role as protector of the Union.

Not that there is much danger of this because, unless there is a massive change in personnel, the pro-Union bias will remain and Scottish News will be dominated by the usual Cringe.

So, all in all, even if a Scottish Six does come about, I won’t be turning to it as my main source of information.

Blow For Sturgeon?

Posted on July 29th, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

The Ruth Davidson (We’re not really Tories – Honest!) Party have shown their true colours again by asking people to sign a petition against the Named Persons’ legislation. This comes in the wake of them realising that the “Blow for Sturgeon" trumpeted by the BBC and other Unionist media was no such thing. It does, though, confirm to anyone who still harbours any lingering doubts about the Ruth Davidson Party that they would far rather score political points in order to preserve the Union than actually support a scheme which is intended to prevent children suffering abuse, harm or even death.

Of course, they will claim, the Named Persons’ legislation is hated because it is a Snoopers’ Charter. Coming from the Ruth Davidson Party, this is pretty rich considering the IP Bill the Tories are pushing through in Westminster which will allow the UK Government to spy on every email, phone call or text message made by any UK resident. In comparison, the NP Bill is nothing. Indeed, if it is so hated, one should perhaps ask the Ruth Davidson Party why the Bill passed through Holyrood without a single MSP voting against it. Could it be that they actually thought it was a good idea but have now jumped on the back of a bandwagon started by a small number of zealots who haven’t bothered to read the legislation or listen to the experiences of people who have been involved in the trials of the scheme?

But what about this “Blow for Sturgeon"? According to initial media reports, the Supreme Court had ruled the NP Bill incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. There was much gloating and celebrating by the Ruth Davidson Party and others until people actually took the time to read what the judgement said. It transpired that the Court found the intention of the legislation to be legitimate and benign, not at all the sort of language you’d expect if they had ruled it as breaching the ECHR. In fact, the only part of the legislation they found fault with was the Data Sharing aspect which, under the current wording, could result in confidential data about children and parents being inappropriately shared without consent. The Court knows this can be rectified and has given the Scottish Government six weeks to amend the wording to make it compatible. In legislative terms, six weeks is nothing, showing that the Court expects the Bill to be suitably amended very quickly.

When the true facts emerged, they were so obvious that even the BBC was forced to amend its jubilant headlines to admit the truth. The ruling was so much of a “Blow for Sturgeon" that Children’s charities and Highland Council, where the scheme has been in use for some years on a trial basis, have officially come out and confirmed they are happy with the Court ruling.

This judgement means there may be a slight delay to the Bill coming into full force but it will not prevent NP becoming law. This is what has upset the Ruth Davidson Party and other people who have no idea what the legislation is intended to do or how it is intended to work. Their opposition is based on the one ideological strand that anything the SNP Government does must be bad and they are deliberately putting children at risk solely in order to perpetuate this tribal perspective.

And, of course, the most ironic thing about the whole saga is that many of the people who were acclaiming the Court decision are the same people who want to take the UK out of the EU so that the ECHR does not apply. But then, irony never does seem to register with them.

One final word of warning. This will not be the last we hear of this because no system is capable of completely eliminating child abuse. NP is an attempt to improve the current system and, if the trials are anything to go by, it seems to make a difference. However, we should expect the Ruth Davidson Party to loudly proclaim its failure as soon as one child suffers any sort of harm. When that happens, ask yourself what sort of person would take delight in a child suffering harm?

Still The Same

Posted on July 28th, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

The one thing you can say that is positive about Scottish Labour is that they can issue any sort of Press release in the certain knowledge that it positively won’t receive any scrutiny whatsoever from the Scottish media.

Their latest plan for a post-Brexit Scotland makes it clear that they do not regard the Brexit vote as warranting a second IndieRef. Scotland, it seems, must be kept under Westminster’s control no matter what happens.

Scottish Labour seem to inhabit a very different world to the rest of us. They insist that the Scottish Government must find a way to protect the status of EU citizens working in Scotland, must protect Human and Workers’ Rights and even to establish a Brexit fund to provide help for people who might suffer as a result of the UK leaving the EU.

What seems to escape them completely is that there is only one way to protect those various rights. Unless Theresa May takes the enormous gamble of not proceeding with Brexit, the UK is leaving and Scottish Labour’s principal demand is that Scotland leaves with it. If that happens, there is no way the Scottish Government can do anything about the various rights Scottish Labour want protected.

As for the Brexit fund, it is a laudable idea but Scottish Labour don’t even have a Plan A as to where the money is to come from, let alone a Plan B. Presumably they want some other services cut so that they can shout “SNPBad!" when the money is set aside for the Brexit fund. They also casually ignore the fact that it should really be the UK Government who set up any such fund. Why should money be taken out of Scotland’s ever-dwindling budget to cater for things inflicted on us by the UK? Oh, wait, that’s normal, isn’t it?

All in all, this latest bizarre call from Scottish Labour merely confirms their decline into irrelevance. They cannot bring themselves to support Scotland as a viable, independent country yet they demand that the Scottish Government take steps it could only take if Scotland were independent. They seem to be stuck in this “Best of Both Worlds" mindset but haven’t realised that the two worlds they want to have the best of are mutually incompatible. They will soon need to choose one or the other and they surely must realise that choosing the UK will sound their final death knell because the Ruth Davidson (“We’re not really Tories, vote for Ruth") Party have got the Unionist vote sewn up. Labour never seem to have learned that you can’t out-Tory the Tories and trying to portray yourselves as saviours of the Union when Ruth and her buddies have grabbed all the Union flags is a complete waste of time.

All of this seems very obvious but it would have been nice to hear some Scottish media voices pointing out these major inconsistencies in Scottish Labour’s muddled proposals. Still, some things never change.

Rock, Meet Hard Place

Posted on July 22nd, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Theresa May faces a difficult decision regarding Brexit and neither choice seems to offer anything but constitutional crisis.

She has said that Brexit means Brexit which implies that she will indeed encourage the Westminster Parliament to vote through agreement to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The problem with this course of action is that it will inevitably lead to another Scottish IndieRef and may also see Northern Ireland vote to become part of the Republic of Ireland, thus leaving England and Wales as a very much diminished UK.

Can you imagine the angst Theresa May must face at the prospect of being the PM who oversaw the break up of the UK? Her one saving grace is that she could perhaps stomach this because she can point the finger at others for bringing about the prospective calamity. That’s a calamity from the perspective of BritNats, anyway. The majority of citizens of Scotland and Northern Ireland would probably view it very differently.

So, it is possible that Theresa May might see herself as the saviour of England, guiding that isolated and increasingly xenophobic country to its bleak new future which will see the Tories in perpetual power.

On the other hand, she might have realised that losing control over Scotland and Northern Ireland is too great a price to pay. Under UK rules, the result of the referendum is not binding and must be confirmed by the Westminster Parliament. What if Theresa May decides to quietly encourage her MPs to vote not to trigger Article 50? After all, the lies of the Leave campaign are now well known and the realisation that having access to the single market in Europe would still allow unrestricted access to the UK by hordes (or is it swarms?) of nasty foreigners might be enough to persuade Westminster that Brexit just isn’t worth it.

If Article 50 is not invoked, Theresa May virtually cuts the rug from under the feet of the Scottish Indie movement. She might believe she can keep the UK together and mollify the very large minority who voted to Leave by explaining that they were sold a lie by UKIP and others.

There are already some people calling for this course of action because the next General Election will be in 2020, by which time the UK will be outside of the EU. Given the problems Brexit is likely to bring, either through not delivering what the Leave campaign wanted or through placing England and Wales in a very isolated position and a declining economy, many voters may decide that it wasn’t such a good idea after all and might turn against the incumbent Government. As the main aim of the Tory Party is to remain in power, some MPs may be attracted to the idea of indefinitely postponing Brexit and attempting to handle the fallout rather than face the prospect of being voted out in 2020.

This is, however, a high risk strategy. For a start, Scotland may decide to go its own way anyway. Brexit may have been the trigger for many people but the Trident vote and the betrayal of the Clyde Ship workers have added to the case for independence and cancelling Brexit may still not be enough to persuade voters to return to the Union fold.

The other reason is that it may not be possible to suppress the outcry from the Leave campaign. While some voters may have altered their opinions now that they realise they were lied to, we should not underestimate the power of British Nationalism, for which read English Nationalism. The referendum may not be legally binding on the Government but refusing to act on the result could cause another major constitutional crisis for the Tories. UKIP would undoubtedly see another surge and the xenophobic Press would have a field day as they whipped up support for the referendum outcome to be honoured. Four years is a very long time in politics but it is very possible that cancelling Brexit could also see the Tories ousted, or at least losing their majority, not thanks to Labour but by a revitalised UKIP.

Remaining within the EU would also be very difficult because the other members would know that the UK’s membership is half-hearted and they would be very unlikely to be sympathetic to any demands the UK might make in negotiations.

So it’s a tough call, whichever way Theresa May decides to jump. If she’s smart, she may recognise that she’s already lost Scotland and so she might decide to bite the bullet and go for Brexit. If she tries to be clever and negotiate a way of postponing Brexit, who knows what could happen? She might end up having one of the shortest Premierships in UK history when Boris sticks the knife in and seizes control.

Either way, though, it is increasingly evident that Scotland is better off outside this truly dreadful Union.

Be Patient

Posted on July 16th, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

There are growing calls on social media for Nicola Sturgeon to launch her promised summer campaign for Scottish independence. However, those calling for this are probably going to be disappointed.

The problem is that, since Nicola Sturgeon made this promise, there has been a material change in circumstances. There is obviously a risk in delaying because the Unionist media and politicians have already begun Project Fear to persuade people that independence is a bad idea. The longer the SNP allow this to continue unchallenged, the more harm it will do.

But there are some excellent reasons why we should not rush into calling another IndieRef at the moment.

First of all, the main reason many people are now waking up to the positive case for independence is the Brexit referendum result. The promise that only a No vote in the IndieRef could secure our place in the EU has, like virtually every other Better Together claim, been proven to be a lie and this one seems to have been the final straw for many people.

The problem the SNP face here is that, until Article 50 is invoked, the UK is not certain to leave the EU and Theresa May is already soft-pedalling on that front. I am sure she will be compelled to formally issue the required proclamation eventually but she may yet harbour thoughts of persuading the Westminster Parliament that it should not be done notwithstanding the Brexit vote.

If Article 50 is not triggered, the main reason for calling a second Scottish IndieRef falls away, leaving the SNP open to accusations of making a knee jerk reaction and hurrying towards a referendum without good cause.

The second reason is that Nicola Sturgeon has established a group of experts to examine the various options open to Scotland. If she were to call for an IndieRef before that group had reported – and it has met only once so far – this would also leave her open to accusations of exploiting an uncertain situation with no Plan A, let alone a Plan B. The fact that the Tories went into the Brexit Referendum without a plan A is immaterial because we all know it is only Scotland that will ever be held to account for such things.

So, until we have a clear idea of what the UK is going to do and until Scotland has a clearly defined plan of how our EU membership can be retained, don’t expect any progress on a second IndieRef.

Be patient; it will come.

Silver Lining

Posted on July 14th, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

As the full horror of Theresa May’s premiership begins to dawn on people, it is worth noting her stance on Unions.

It appears that, while she is happy for the UK to leave the European Union, she is determined to keep Scotland in thrall to Westminster as part of the UK. Her first speech confirmed as much and it really isn’t a surprise. That’s because Westminster is only keen on Unions when it has total control over what happens within that Union.

Membership of the EU requires diplomacy, negotiation and compromise, none of which sit well with the Westminster culture. but when it comes to the UK, Westminster rules the roost and can dictate terms. That’s the sort of Union Theresa May and her new band of Right Wing zealots like.

Just about the only good thing you can say about May’s appointment as PM is that it makes the chances of a second IndieRef that much more likely. It’s a silver lining on an otherwise very dark cloud.

Too Late

Posted on July 11th, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

So Devo Max or possibly a Federal UK is back on the agenda. At least, it is if you listen to the Unionist media which is pushing the idea for all it is worth. Funny how it is always promised whenever the UK State is threatened by breakup but somehow never actually seems to be delivered.

There are many who still see a Federal solution as the best option for the UK but it certainly isn’t the best option for Scotland. For a start, even assuming each of the four nations had its own Parliament with a central UK Parliament responsible for foreign affairs, defence and an overarching responsibility for the economy, does anyone seriously think that these things can be left with Westminster? A seemingly endless procession of foreign wars have destabilised the global political situation but the UK is determined to keep bombing people who can’t fight back except through acts of terrorism. We’ve angered our fellow EU members and the value of sterling is plummeting. What sort of argument does any of that give for allowing Westminster to control Scotland’s place in the world?

The other big flaw in the latest push for Federalism is that it completely and wilfully ignores the biggest issue in UK politics just now. With Brexit very much on the cards, massive constitutional change resulting in a Federal UK will still not keep Scotland in the EU. If Scotland remains in the UK, it will be forced out of the EU. Presumably the Unionists promoting the latest version of Devo Max are either so stupid they haven’t realised this or, more likely, they genuinely believe that we are so stupid we won’t notice.

The only way this suggestion could have any merit is if the UK Parliament refused to invoke Article 50 and the UK remained in the EU. That seems increasingly unlikely as it would undoubtedly create yet another political crisis in England but even if it does happen, a Scotland which remains in the UK would have no guarantees that the same Brexit scenario would not arise again. There is also the distinct possibility that a UK which remains in the EU would suddenly decide that there is no real call for a Federal solution to its problems after all.

But Federalism isn’t the solution anyway. The time for that is long past. There is only one viable solution and we all know what it is.

Conspiracy Theory

Posted on July 9th, 2016

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Sir Nicholas MacPherson has written an article asserting that Brexit offers some excellent opportunities for an independent Scotland, a comment which has been widely welcomed by many in the Yes movement, not least by Nicola Sturgeon.

However, the cynics amongst us are sceptical about Sir Humphrey’s – sorry, Sir Nicholas’s - motives.

Remember, this is the man who was so committed to the UK that he was prepared to ignore the Civil Service rules of impartiality and brief against Scotland becoming independent. It is also worth noting his title. He is an Establishment man through and through, owing his career and status to the UK.

So why would he make such a comment now? There are three possible reasons.

First, he may genuinely believe that retaining membership of the EU is so important that it outweighs any loyalty to the UK and that Scotland would genuinely be better off as an independent nation. But, bearing in mind his former position and his proven loyalties to the UK State, this really has to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

A second possible motive is that he intends to move to Scotland if we do become independent. He apparently owns estates here and he may want to retain the EU subsidies he is no doubt eligible for. Given that he spent his working life in a system which promotes personal betterment at the expense of pretty much everything else, this cannot be ruled out as a reason for his apparent change of heart.

There is, though, a third and more Machiavellian reason why he might have made such a pronouncement. You see, some members of the Establishment know that Brexit is a bad idea which will not only cut the UK off from the single market and create financial hardship for years to come, it is also likely to lead to the break up of the UK. The vestiges of the colonial mindset which still retains a massive influence over many in England may just baulk at the thought of Scotland going its own way. It’s a high risk strategy but reminding people of the international prestige they stand to lose if Scotland leaves the UK might just be enough to deter them from going through with Brexit. The reason it is high risk is because patriotic pride is a driving force amongst Brexiteers and Scotland hasn’t exactly displayed the appropriate amounts of jingoistic fervour recently so it is possible that many in England will be glad to let the whingeing Jocks go their own way.

But if this is the aim of the strategy, who could come out and plant the seeds? Current members of the Civil Service might not be willing to put their heads above the parapet or they might have more scruples about breaching regulations than Sir Humphrey – oops! – did during the IndieRef. But he is retired now and therefore in a position to say whatever he likes. Perhaps he thought up this wheeze himself or perhaps he was approached and agreed to write the piece in order to help out his old chums.

If this hypothesis sounds like a conspiracy theory, maybe it is. It could be completely wrong and Sir Humphrey – damn! – may be absolutely sincere in his views. After all, there is a first time for everything.

Ye'll hae had yer Chilcot then?

Posted on July 7th, 2016

by Wee Hamish,

Ye’ll hae had yer Chilcot then? Efter a’ that time and money, whit did we actually learn? Nothing we didnae already ken. George Dubya said, “Let’s take out Saddam" and Teflon Tony wagged his tail and jumped to help, spinning the facts tae mak’ sure the muppets in the Hoose o’ commons went alang wi’ him.

Will he get awa’ wi’ it? Probably. He’s made his millions and he can spin oot any legal action fur years.

Whitever happens, though, there’s ane thing ye can be certain o’. Gordie Broon and a’ thae ither MPs wha voted tae gang tae war in Iraq will keep their heids doon and hope naebody bothers them. But when the BBC needs somebody tae stand up and scare the fearties awa’ fae IndyRef2, they’ll a’ come oot o’ the woodwork and be queueing up tae see wha can shout the loudest.

We Got The Blues

Posted on June 30th, 2016

By Tcswim

We got the blues!

Blue on blue

black n blue


Eton-boyz blues

We all lose.

Bad news

for folk like me and you

trying to get through

the lies and the hate

from the blue Tory state

and their chums in the press

spewing a shitty news-mess

paid for and sold

by corrupt-Tory gold.

By the inches watch them buy

Lie after lie;

Read the Tory-life of lies

In a state where all truth dies

“Create hate mate!"

Say the pompous and the great

Create red n blue frustration

Demonize immigration

If you don’t look like me

There’s leaky boats on the sea

Vote Brexit & be proud

Watch the dip in the pound

Join the Eton chorus

Of Bullington Boris

Follow me! Follow me!

Brexit is for us and ME!

T’hell with the economy

Fk- the pols and the frogs

The jocks and the Calais nogs

In Engerland’s blue and unpleasant


Democracy is a mirage!

With Boris, Gove n fkn Farage!"

Don’t dance to that band

Let’s have jazz in our land

The drum beat o fraternity

Horns give us dignity

Wi the bass-strum o solidarity

An the pipes o sovereignty

Give us stramach ‘n rock n roll

With an honest Celtic soul

Give us Euro-romance

We’ll hooch n we’ll dance

Across Europe n France

A great Ceilidh of joy

So dance Greek kore n boy

With garcon n lassie

With zolkie and brahzie

Dance across the Rhone n Rhine

In soul n prance n reel-time

and through our heather

Oh how we’ll dance!

We will dance; dance the gither!

Oh what a nonsense that we cannie dance

Ideas leap & whirl in this wee country

In reels of thought and dreams

And in the progress of the steps it seems

That in our dance we hope, for in that glance

We choreograph a future.

Freedom is our destiny: for this we dance.

Follow The Leader

Posted on June 27th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Do you remember the days when people used to sneer at Holyrood politicians and say that they were so lacking in ability they couldn’t be trusted to run a sweetie shop? All the really clever politicians were to be found at Westminster, weren’t they?

How times change. The past couple of days have shown that there is only one politician who has considered the potential outcomes and consequences of the EURef and who has shown any degree of leadership. Thankfully, that politician is Nicola Sturgeon who has displayed genuine statespersonship with her calm but authoritative speeches.

In contrast, what has the UK Government done? David Cameron has washed his hands of things while George Osborne spent the weekend in hiding, perhaps along with Theresa May and the rest of the pro-EU Front Benchers. No doubt they are busy plotting their own career moves which is about what you would expect from Westminster politicians who put their own interests before those of the country they are supposed to be governing.

As for Labour, this should be the chance they have been waiting for. With the Government in disarray, they should be putting the boot in and showing some genuine leadership. However, Jeremy Corbyn, who displays all the leadership qualities of a shop manikin at the best of times, has instead been fighting off a revolt among his own Shadow Cabinet.

So, at this time of constitutional crisis, we have no effective Government and no effective Opposition.

But what about the Brexit mob who won the Referendum? Surely they have been prominent and telling us what happens next? Um, no, actually. Boris Johnson went to a cricket match while Michael Gove and Ian Duncan Smith have kept a relatively low profile as has the normally publicity-hungry Nigel Farage. Why? Well, basically because they didn’t expect to win and they have no idea what to do next. One of the pro-Brexit Tory MPs has told Sky News that they don’t have a plan because they expected No.10 to devise one.

It’s quite incredible, isn’t it? Do you recall how mercilessly the SNP were challenged over the Independence White Paper? If that level of questioning had been put to the Leave campaign by anyone in the media we wouldn’t be here now because they didn’t have anything approaching a White Paper. In fact, it seems they didn’t even have a few notes scribbled down on the back of one of Nigel’s fag packets.

What Leave seem to have been hoping for is that a Brexit vote would bring the EU to the bargaining table in an effort to persuade the UK to remain. That is a typically arrogant, Brit-centric view of the world because the EU doesn’t appear to have any intentions of playing ball. There are too many rumblings of discontent among other EU countries and the organisation needs to treat the UK harshly to discourage others from thinking about holding their own referendums. On top of that, the UK has behaved so scornfully towards the EU – whose other members are foreigners, remember – that you can hardly blame them for wanting to kick us out.

But what about Scotland? Some BritNats have been loudly proclaiming that EU sources are ruling out the “Reverse Greenland" option whereby Scotland could remain in the EU while also remaining part of the UK. This unofficial ruling has been proclaimed as a “Blow for Sturgeon" by at least one media outlet who appear not to have noticed that Nicola Sturgeon’s ultimate aim is independence for Scotland. If the Reverse Greenland option is off the table, the only viable option presently available if Scots are to remain in the EU is for the country to become independent and retain its current EU status. By ruling out Reverse Greenland, the EU are helping Scotland’s independence cause. Indeed, there have been several unofficial comments from people within the EU suggesting that a request from an independent Scotland would be favourably received.

There is a long way to go yet and no doubt it will be a rocky and difficult path but Nicola Sturgeon has one major advantage over any of the politicians running the UK Parties at Westminster – she’s competent and puts the interests of her country first.

I didn’t think independence would come for several years yet but the arrogance and incompetence of the ruling class in Westminster seems to be doing the job for us. Fingers crossed.

Ceud Mille Failte

Posted on June 26th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

It is easy, and tempting, to say, “We told you so" but this is not the time. Many people who voted No in the Scottish IndieRef had reasons for doing so but, with the Brexit result having shattered the last of Better Together’s lies, the only real reason anyone can have for opposing Scottish independence is that they are imbued with such deep-rooted British Nationalism that nothing will change their minds.

For those who are now willing to switch sides, it is incumbent on those of us in the Yes movement to welcome them aboard. What happened in 2014 is in the past and both Scotland and the UK are very different places now. We need to face the future together. After all, what we want is to build a fairer, progressive, inclusive, outward-looking and peaceful society which, quite frankly, the UK cannot provide.

Switching to Yes is easy. The only criterion is that you have decided to make your home in Scotland and want to contribute to our nation’s prosperity. Your ethnic or religious background does not matter. Nor does your political affiliation. The SNP may be the de facto political arm of the Yes movement but the campaign was always much wider than the SNP. Indeed, in a post-Indie Scotland it will be essential that our Parliament contains a variety of views. But that is still some way in the future. What we need to do now is gather support for a Yes vote in the next IndieRef, whenever that may take place.

So if you know someone who voted NO but who has changed their minds, offer them a smile, a handshake or a hug and let’s work together to make this happen.

The Yes campaign is famous for hijacking its opponents’ slogans and now we have a chance to completely reverse the meaning of “Better Together".

Some Certainties

Posted on June 24th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Today is not a day to express anger even if we feel it. We face a challenging time and a very uncertain future. Only time will tell how this will be resolved and it is too early to speculate on anything.

Despite the widespread uncertainty, though, there are one or two things we can now be certain of.

First is that the Better Together claim that the only way to safeguard EU citizenship was to vote No in the Scottish IndieRef has finally been nailed down for the lie it always was. This makes the prospects of a Yes vote in any second IndieRef a bit more likely since it is now hard to think of a single Better Together threat that hasn’t been proved to be a falsehood or has come true despite the No vote. Whether that will be sufficient to swing enough No voters to Yes remains to be seen and, at the moment, I wouldn’t bet on it.

Secondly, we can now see with absolute certainty that Scotland’s voice in the UK simply doesn’t count. All the pleas to Lead the UK, not Leave it have been shown up as mere platitudes. Scotland can never lead the UK and can’t even influence things even with a majority of voters making the same choice. This is not an equal union and never will be.

Another thing that is certain is that the oft-repeated claim that social attitudes in Scotland are much the same as those in England has been shown up as another falsehood. It may be true in some areas because, after all, we share a language, a currency and an imperialist history, so there are undoubtedly some things held in common but every vote since the IndieRef has shown that Scots have a very different attitude towards the way they want to be governed.

My overriding reaction today is one of dismay. This Brexit vote may well result in Scotland becoming an independent nation but, if that does happen, it will be a depressing way for it to come about. That’s because, although Scotland has a potential escape route, I can’t help but feel sorry for my friends and relatives in England who face the prospect of a very bleak future under perpetual tory rule with all the austerity and hardship that will inevitably entail.

The ABC of Leave

Posted on June 22nd, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

The EU debate has been truly appalling, with the Tories having dragged everyone else into their civil war. Neither side has made a proper case, with scare stories and invented financial estimates bandied around as if nobody is going to care whether there is any foundation to the figures. The media has gleefully kept the debate to an argument on immigration and those few politicians who have tried to make the positive case for the EU have either struggled badly to do so or have been given very limited time on a public platform.

So, when it boils down to choosing between two groups of arrogant, vindictive liars, which Tories should we side with? I’ve said before that, while I detest being on the same side as David Cameron and George Osborne, the alternative is even worse. But we shouldn’t bring personalities into this. None of the Tories heading either campaign will be around forever but the consequences of the Referendum outcome will last a long time, so we really ought to examine the claims of the Brexit mob quite carefully before accepting their vision of a Britain outside the EU.

First of all, I acknowledge, once again, that the EU is far from perfect and there are several aspects about it that I dislike intensely. However, the argument that we would be better off outside the EU boils down to three main areas. Let’s look at this A, B, C of Leave.

A is for the Amount the UK pays to the EU.

This has been claimed to be £350million per week, a figure which has been disproved since it takes no account of the UK Rebate nor the sums paid to the UK under schemes like the Common Agricultural Policy, Scientific Research, Investment in infrastructure, etc. When pressed, the Leave campaign will admit that the net figure of the UK’s contribution is around £10billion per year, which cleverly avoids comparison with the weekly figure they headline. For your information, £10billion per year is a little over £190million per week, or around 55% of the gross figure.

The claim from Leave is that even this £10billion could be better spent in the UK than on funding the EU. The NHS is usually cited as the main beneficiary of this although I have heard Brexit campaigners also say it could replace University Research funding, pay for infrastructure development and fund British industries. This money, it seems, will go a long way if you believe the promises of people who have formerly pledged to abolish the NHS.

But there is more. The thing with the contribution is that it gives the UK access to the single market. Without this, UK trade would suffer. The counter argument is that we could adopt the Norwegian model but those who claim this never mention that Norway actually pays a hefty contribution to the EU for access to the single market but has no representation within the EU while needing to adopt all EU regulations, including the free movement of people. So adopting the Norwegian model would save a very small amount of money but still leave us with the same requirements to meet EU trading standards and the free movement of EU citizens. That’s not much of an incentive, really.

The other argument is that the UK could adopt its own trading agreements with the EU and it must be admitted that there would certainly be a desire on the part of many in Europe to continue to trade with the UK. Again, though, what is never mentioned is that agreeing such trade deals takes several years. What happens in the meantime? Nobody really knows but it’s a fairly safe bet the economic outlook for those years will not be particularly rosy.

B is for Borders.

Immigrants are the great scare story. Despite several studies showing that immigrants contribute far more to the UK economy than they take out, they are still portrayed by Brexiters as the cause for all the problems ordinary people are suffering throughout the UK. This is nonsense. The reason people are suffering, businesses closing down and adequate housing being in short supply is the rule of a Tory Government in Westminster which is wedded to neo-liberal ideals and Austerity in public spending. People clearly see something is wrong but they are being directed by the likes of UKIP and a Right Wing Press to blame immigrants. Blaming outsiders is a common tactic in authoritarian regimes. It is being used by Donald Trump in America, that was used in the 1990s in Rwanda, in the 1930s in Germany, in 19th Century Russia and in many other places throughout history. It is, quite frankly, appalling that anyone should make a political decision based on hatred of people from a different ethnic or cultural background but that is essentially what Leave wants us to do.

The focus on immigration also ignores the fact that one of the basic principles of the EU is the free movement of people. Britons can, and do, travel and live all across the EU. It is this principle which has helped to ensure that Europe, a continent which spent hundreds of years in a state of almost perpetual war, has experienced seventy years of peace. That’s no small thing.

It is also worth mentioning that many of the so-called immigrants who are flooding into Europe are refugees from wars which the UK has not only supported but actively participated in, while doing the bare minimum to house any of the refugees it has helped to create.

C is for Control

We keep hearing we need to “Take Back Control" from Brussels. This is a cleverly-crafted bit of spin which appeals to the basic notion of self-determination and is used to berate supporters of Scottish independence who, it is claimed, don’t want to be ruled by Westminster but are happy to be ruled by the EU.

Of course, there is no real comparison between the two governing bodies. The EU does not dictate to the UK which countries to bomb or send troops to; it does not dictate that the UK must retain nuclear weapons and park them close to Scotland’s largest population centre; it does not dictate the UK’s position in other bodies like the UN or NATO; it does not set UK tax rates; it does not set UK Social Security Benefits; it does not dictate UK economic policies. I could go on but I’m sure you get the idea.

The rules the EU does set are principally around the single market and the issues of Human Rights, Workers’ Rights and Environmental matters. Those who want to take back control of these things are the very people who want to abolish them. That is hardly likely to be done with the intention of making life better for ordinary citizens.

We should also ask whether the UK does actually have laws imposed by the EU. The claim that around 60% of our laws are dictated by Brussels is simply nonsense. When you take Statutory Instruments into account (i.e. laws passed by Westminster Governments without debate in the Commons), the percentage drops to around 13% and, as mentioned, these are concentrated in specific areas of legislation. Even these laws are not really imposed. Analysis of votes in the European Parliament show that the UK has been on the losing side only around 2% of the time. If we are on the winning side 98% of the time, we can hardly claim we do not have an element of control.

And let’s not forget that, as mentioned earlier, we would need to abide by EU trade regulations if we wanted to trade with them at all, whether we are in the single market or not, so taking back control of that area would be impossible. Adopting the Norwegian model wouldn’t give us control over immigration either, since we would need to accept the free movement of people as a prerequisite of gaining access to the single market.

There is another spurious argument being touted by some in the Leave campaign. The example is the Scottish Government’s attempt to introduce Minimum Pricing on alcohol. This democratically decided issue has been overturned by the European Court of Justice. This sort of thing, it is implied, would not happen if the UK was outside the EU. It is, though, an incorrect argument. The courts are not the same as the EU Parliament. This law has been blocked by the vested interest of the whisky industry taking legal action. We may not like the outcome but we cannot confuse legal actions decided in the Courts with Parliamentary decisions. Even in the UK, the Westminster Government has had policies challenged in the UK Courts and been found to have acted illegally. The EU decision on Minimum Pricing is based on giving trade priority over people’s health. It’s not the decision we wanted but it is in keeping with the EU’s general policy of promoting free trade. It is an example of a legal ruling we don’t like but it is, by itself, no reason to quit the EU. Instead, the Scottish Government should challenge it on the issue of the Human Right to health but to do so means staying in the EU.

So that’s the three main areas the Leave campaign have based their arguments on and none of them really stands up to scrutiny. That’s not to say the EU is ideal because no large organisation ever is but the reasons we are being given to vote Leave simply aren’t good enough to convince me.

On The Politics Of Hate

Posted on June 20th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

In the aftermath of the dreadful murder of MP Jo Cox, the vast majority of people have been calling for an end to the Politics of Hate. Sadly, this situation is not likely to last, especially as it has not gone away, only slightly toned down its screeching. It is no coincidence that, while some newspapers are concentrating on the Killer’s links to extremist Far Right organisations, the Right Wing newspapers are focusing on the state of his mental health without any consideration being given to the possibility that the two often go hand in hand.

This is, of course, because the Right Wing Press are seeking to distance themselves from any responsibility for fostering hatred yet, as has been pointed out on social media, these are the same newspapers who insist that young Muslims can be radicalised by listening to a hate preacher yet refuse to admit that the decades of anti-immigration rhetoric they themselves have been churning out can have any effect on anyone’s views. This is utterly hypocritical since the whole point of newspapers is to influence people’s attitudes. That is why politicians know it is important to cultivate relations with the media barons.

So the Politics of Hate will soon be in full flow again because that is the way the British State operates. Many people on social media have been calling for a return to the British Values of Fairness, Compassion and Tolerance. What this call does not recognise is that while those values are held by a great many ordinary people in the UK and all around the world, they are not values maintained by those in power. Even a cursory look back over the history of the British state shows that Fairness, Compassion and Tolerance have been sadly lacking in the way our country has operated. This is still true today, with British munitions contributing to much of the death in the Middle East and refugees from those conflicts being demonised by the Brexit campaign. Not that the official UK response has been much better, with the UK taking in far fewer refugees than any other EU country.

Closer to home, the British Establishment has always used scare tactics to keep its populace in check. Tudor England demonised the French, scots and Spanish depending on which country England was at war with at the time, the Jacobites were subjected to the same scaremongering and the Napoleonic Wars saw these tactics used on a large scale. It has continued ever since. Only with the advent of the internet and wider social use of the new online media have more and more people had access to alternative visions of our past and present.

Yet it may not be enough. Politicians and journalists know that a lie, if repeated often enough, becomes true in the minds of many people, especially if it is a short, snappy and imaginative lie which appeals to the baser instincts.

Making Britain Great again is one such mantra. It cleverly conflates the two meanings of the word, “Great" to appeal to some patriotic vision of past glories. Of course, Great Britain is named because the British Isles comprise two large islands surrounded by many smaller ones. Of the two, the larger one, composed of the nations of England, Wales and Scotland, is called Great Britain as a geographical term indicating its larger size compared to Ireland. That geographical meaning has been hijacked to imply that Britain is Great in the other sense of the word meaning magnificent, powerful and worthy of admiration. Yet, strangely, when you go abroad you will find less admiration for Britain than the term implies. This, though, tends to reinforce the BritNat view that foreigners are somehow lesser people.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being proud of your country and its achievements and people but that should not be taken to mean that other countries and people are not equally important or that military victories are the only things that make a country admirable. British culture as portrayed by the Establishment and media has, regrettably, resulted in far too many people deriding anyone from a different culture or ethnic background. Fairness, Compassion and Tolerance are conspicuous by their absence.

But there is hope. Social media is spreading the word that the values many of the ordinary citizens of the UK hold dear are fighting back against this surge in xenophobia and hatred. Whether it will be enough to prevent Brexit becoming a reality remains to be seen. Yet even if it does, the result promises to be so close that the EU issue will not go away. Just as the Scottish IndieRef has not killed off the Yes campaign, so a defeat in the EURef will not kill off the Brexit campaign. It is not a pleasant prospect but it is more than likely that Westminster’s culture of smear and hatred will soon reassert itself.

It may sound selfish but the best thing Scotland can do is gain independence from this unpleasant system of Government as soon as possible. If we don’t, we are going to be subjected to many more examples of the Politics of Hate.

Propaganda Case Study

Posted on June 19th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

We all know that the media is almost completely united in its opposition to the idea of Scottish independence and, by extension, to anything the SNP say or do. The barrage of #SNPBad stories wasn’t diminished in any way by the Orlando killings and the farcical EU Referendum debate, although these stories did tend to push the SNP-bashing into the background. Even the awful murder of Jo Cox MP wasn’t enough to prevent a couple of ultra-Unionists attempting to twist things, with one Radio presenter allegedly making the bizarre and unfounded claim that the MP’s murder was akin to the sort of acts perpetrated by Yes supporters during the Scottish IndieRef.

By and large, I am able to brush off most of these stories because they are obvious propaganda but one in particular caught my attention last week because of its subtle misrepresentation of facts.

It came from the Aberdeen-based Press & Journal and bore the headline: “How the Named Person Scheme abandoned tragic toddler Clyde".

Now, strictly speaking, the headline could be interpreted as being factually accurate although it is highly misleading.

It centres on the tragic death of a two-year-old toddler whose mother has been found guilty of neglecting her child and the story concentrates on the fact that, after two initial visits from a Health Visitor who was nominated as the child’s Named Person under the trial system taking place in Highland Region, there were only to further attempts at contact, both by telephone. After the second of these calls, the mother stated that she no longer wished to receive visits from the Health Visitor. The inference in the article is clearly that this “abandonment" was principally to blame for the child’s death eighteen months later.

It was only when you read the entire article that several other facts came to light.

Firstly, the child’s death was attributed to Cot Death, also known as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, a desperately sad occurrence which even the newspaper could not directly link to the neglect the toddler had suffered.

Secondly, the Police, Children’s Services, Hospital and Nursery staff were all in contact with the family and ostensibly reviewing the child’s situation. Again, there was no comment made as to how any of these parties could have prevented a Cot Death.

Clearly, something was wrong in the review process if the mother was found guilty of neglect but, at least according to the press & Journal, that neglect was not directly responsible for the child’s tragic death. Even if the various parties had taken steps earlier to place the toddler in care, there is no guarantee that this would have prevented a Cot Death as this awful fate can afflict anyone.

From this we can see that the focus of the article is nothing more than a politically-motivated attack on the SP’s Named Persons’ policy. The Named Person has no power to place a child in care. All he or she can do is refer concerns to the appropriate Authorities. In this case, even though the Health Visitor had not seen the child for eighteen months, various other bodies were looking at the case, so the involvement of the Named Person would probably have made little difference.

That is not to say the circumstances should not be closely examined because any child’s death needs to be carefully reviewed to identify any shortcomings, whether by individuals or by the system which is supposed to monitor the child’s welfare but to imply that it was the “abandonment" by the Named Person which was responsible for this tragic death is, quite frankly, nothing more than a despicable attempt to use a tragedy for political purposes.

There is another significant issue in relation to this sort of reporting. The main opposition to the Named Persons’ legislation is that it appoints a “State Guardian" who can interfere in family life and deny parents the right to bring up their own children. That is a gross misrepresentation of the way the system operates as the Named Person is merely a first point of contact who has some formal responsibilities to raise concerns and refer cases to the appropriate Authorities if deemed necessary. The Named Person is not a State Guardian and it is a bizarre feature of the opposition to the system that, in the mercifully few cases where a death has occurred, the Named Person is actually being blamed for not interfering enough. That’s Unionist media logic for you. As long as they can say, “The SNP are bad", they will misrepresent any story.

Of course, the Press & Journal will claim that they were merely putting an editorial slant to a factually correct story and, in strict terms, they are perhaps correct although that is a matter of interpretation. The story itself consisted of little more than the basic facts of the case plus quotes from parties who either opposed Named Persons’ or who represented Child Welfare Services. In other words, as we have come to expect from our media, there was no attempt to critically analyse the facts or comments, merely to reproduce them with a headline which was intended to arouse anger against the new policy. Is it any wonder more and more people are turning to online sources for an alternative media where there is at least some attempt to put things into context and provide evidence to support arguments?

Plan B?

Posted on June 11th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

I was disappointed to hear that Nicola Sturgeon has announced an independent Scotland would continue to use Sterling. I have long advocated the creation of a Scottish Pound as a separate currency and, with the currency issue perceived as the Yes campaign’s Achilles’ Heel during the IndieRef, my initial reaction was to ask, “Has she learned nothing?".

I believe an independent Scotland would suffer by clinging to the currency of a country which has cut itself off from the EU and which clings stubbornly to Austerity Economics despite the mounting evidence of the harm this does. In my view, Sterling will lose a significant percentage of its value if the UK leaves the EU and I see little value in Scotland continuing to use a shunned currency. In economic terms, the only benefit would be that our exports of whisky, beef, salmon and oil would be relatively cheap for other countries to purchase and there may be a slight boost to tourism. The downside is that it would take longer to build up reserves of foreign currency because those purchasing our goods would require less of their currency to do so. In addition, the cost of our imports would be higher than at present. Thirdly, a falling Pound would put pressure on the Bank of England to raise interest rates, with a potentially devastating impact on anyone with a mortgage and a knock-on effect on the overall economy

So why declare sterling as the preferred option?

After some reflection, I think I understand the motivation behind this. At one level, it means Nicola Sturgeon is seen to support the stance held by Alex Salmond when he was First Minister but the principal reason must surely be to allay the fears of the great many Scots who demonstrated their worries about any sort of change. Switching to a new currency, while not that difficult in practice, would trigger alarm bells and give the Unionists an easy target for scaring the elderly and anxious.

To be fair, creating an independent state, even if we already have many of the institutions and societal infrastructure in place, is a big enough task without needing to constantly fend off attacks over a new currency.

Then there is the need to focus on one thing at a time. It is the EURef which currently dominates and discussing a hypothetical change of currency after a Yes vote in a second IndieRef which might not take place anyway, is a waste of time.

But let’s hope that, if and when there is a second IndieRef and we get the vote Scotland needs and deserves, the use of Sterling as a currency will be relatively short-lived. Once things settle down and the fearties start to realise that things are not so bad after all, we can start laying the plans for a separate currency which would give us full control of one of the major levers of the economy.

Forked Tongue

Posted on June 8th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

So David Cameron says a vote for Brexit could trigger another Scottish IndieRef? Don’t get too excited, folks. This is the same man who ruled out a second IndieRef only a few months ago. Of course, he’s entitled to change his mind when the facts change but the only fact that has changed is that he is in danger of losing the EURef and his position as PM.

It’s not as if we have become accustomed to Call Me Dave telling the truth on anything at all, let alone the breakup of the UK. So his comment must be regarded as nothing more than a deliberate, unscrupulous ploy to frighten English voters into sticking with the status quo.

But if we can discount Cameron’s claim as cynical scaremongering, we should also ask ourselves why he thinks this prospect should scare so many people. He can’t have been aiming the remark at Scottish Unionists because, quite frankly, there probably aren’t enough of them to greatly influence a UK-wide vote. So he must have been addressing English voters who, for some reason, are worried by the thought that Scotland might leave their precious Union.

There can surely be only two reasons for this. One is that these voters know that Scotland has been subsidising the UK for decades and they fear the economic consequences of losing that funding. However, given that the Scottish subsidy myth is alive and well in England, this seems an unlikely reason.

Which, I believe, leaves only BritNat pride. Cameron must be banking on the fact that the loss of Scotland would be such a blow to English pride that the mere thought of it will scare voters into supporting his call for a Remain vote.

In other words, nothing has really changed since the IndieRef. Scotland is still viewed as part of greater England and Cameron will say anything in order to persuade people to vote the way he wants. I don’t know about anyone else, but I find it impossible to trust a word he utters.

The EU Dilemma

Posted on June 4th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

The arguments which are currently being passed off as a debate on the EU Referendum don’t seem to have captured the imagination of the general public the way the Scottish IndieRef did in Scotland. Perhaps that is because most of the claims from the opposing campaigns are repetitions of the same old scare stories we heard during the IndieRef. The Tories are so accustomed to keeping the general public afraid of change that their only tactic is to produce as many scare stories as they can, predicting financial disasters and job losses.

Even when there is a reasonably sensible debate, such as the LBC Radio discussion between Alex Salmond and Ian Duncan Smith, it is hard to take any of it seriously.

After a great deal of reflection, I have come to the conclusion that this is because of two major factors and I must acknowledge that it was IDS who helped me reach this conclusion. This is because, while listening to him speaking passionately and sincerely about the issues he has with the EU, I recalled how passionately and sincerely he used to speak about his desire to help the Disabled and Unemployed while simultaneously going out of his way to cause significant harm to these very people. In other words, I find it hard to believe anything this unpleasant character says and the same goes for most of his fellow Brexit campaigners. If they are for something, my immediate reaction is to be against it.

Of course, that is not a very sensible way to decide how to vote on anything but, as for the EU itself, I remain ambivalent and I think this goes for a great many people. There are undoubtedly some serious issues with the EU, such as the neo-liberal thinking which dominates the money men and which resulted in the quite shameful and appalling treatment of Greece.

The biggest problem with the debate is, though, that IDS and his fellow Brexit campaigners have some easy targets. The EU has made mistakes and has problems which the Brexiters have pounced on and use to enflame passions. They quote misleading financial figures about the UK’s contribution, they cite the treatment of Greece, and they bang on endlessly about immigration, thereby pandering to the inherent racism which seems to lie at the heart of BritNattery. All of these are easy for the Brexit mob to point to and don’t need much explanation for even the politically ill-informed, so IDS and his Brexit pals have some nice, juicy topics to use as campaign drivers.

When it comes to the Remain side, most people are fed up of the same old financial scare stories and long for someone to make the positive case for staying in the EU. It is a sad reflection that the best attempts at this have been by amateur bloggers online whose audience reach is relatively small. The politicians have largely struggled to make the positive case and even Alex Salmond didn’t make all that great a case during the LBC debate although that was largely due to IDS talking over him at every opportunity.

The difficulty in making a positive case is perhaps because the advantages of the EU are often less immediately visible to the general public and are rather intangible when placed against such emotive topics as immigration and the disastrous results of the single currency project as far as countries like Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain are concerned. You can talk about the European peace that has remained intact since the end of the Second World War but that doesn’t mean much to many people except for the dwindling number who can still remember that dreadful war. You can mention workers’ rights and human rights but those are topics which many people do not consider important unless they are directly affected by the lack of them. Most voters know all about immigration and the Greek financial crisis because these are highlighted by the media but a great many are less aware of the rights they stand to lose if there is a brexit vote and Boris Johnson gets his way.

So I’m still not convinced of the positive case for remaining but there are some things I am pretty certain about. One is that, as with the Scottish IndieRef, all the dire warnings about the financial impact, whichever side is predicting disaster, should be ignored. Nobody knows what is going to happen whatever the outcome of the result. Let’s face it, the OBR can’t even forecast the UK’s Deficit figures six months ahead so there is no way they can predict anything with any certainty covering the next decade or so.

I’m also pretty certain that the right to travel and work anywhere in the EU is a good thing. The fact that this results in net immigration to the UK should not be regarded as too serious a threat since study after study has shown that immigrants, by and large, bring more benefit to the UK than they place a burden.

Trade is another good reason to stay. The EU’s single market may no longer be the UK’s largest export market but that doesn’t mean we should make things more difficult for our exporters, nor that we should place barriers in the way of those seeking to import many of the goods the British public have come to expect to see in their shops.

But what about the serious problems with the EU which we cannot ignore? Are they really serious enough to make leaving a genuine solution? Well, let’s take a look at some of them.

Immigration is the big bugbear of the xenophobes. You only need to watch BBC Question Time for a few minutes on any given week to recognise this. Personally, I’ve never disliked anybody solely because of their ethnic origin. Yes, I’ve come across some Asian people I dislike, just as I’ve come across some African, American and European people I dislike and a not insignificant number of Scots I dislike but, on the whole, I’ve found most people are pretty decent when it comes down to it, no matter where they come from. I refuse to hate someone based on their ethnic origin, so the xenophobic claims of the UKIP crowd leave me cold. As for the impact of immigration, I’ve already mentioned that most serious investigations show that the majority of immigrants contribute to our society and help boost the economy, so there really isn’t an economic argument against immigration, only a racist one.

As for the issue of Greece, I deplore the behaviour of the EU financial entities but they can’t pull the same stunt with the UK because the UK does not use the Euro. Greece’s economy simply wasn’t compatible with the single currency regime and the country’s population is now being punished for its previous Government’s errors. It is shocking and depressing what has been done to Greece but it can’t happen to the UK. That, I admit, smacks of an “I’m All Right, Jack" attitude and it can certainly be argued that voting to leave the EU because of the treatment of Greece would be morally justified. However, in practical terms, the UK leaving the EU won’t help Greece either. And if we are debating the merits of the EU in so far as they impact on the UK, then Greece and the appalling treatment that country continues to suffer under is not a material concern.

Another complaint by Brexit is that the UK pays money to the EU which it could spend on domestic things such as the Health Service. This is a rather strange argument when you examine it more closely. Every country pays into the EU. It’s like your golf club or gym membership. You pay in and you get certain rights in return but you don’t expect to make a profit. I would certainly prefer that there were more rigid controls over EU bureaucratic expenditure because too many people are on that particular gravy train but for Westminster politicians to use the UK’s contribution as a reason to leave the EU is very much a case of pot, kettle and black. I don’t for one minute think the saving in a contribution payment would benefit the NHS. You only need to look at how the Tories are slashing public expenditure to know our public sector wouldn’t see a penny of that money.

For anyone claiming to be a democrat, the undemocratic nature of the EU is one of the hardest criticisms to argue against. What is odd is that politicians who remain in favour of the unelected House of Lords in the UK are unhappy at the European Commission not being directly elected. Putting that aside, it is worth bearing in mind that the Commission needs to have laws ratified by the European Parliament which is elected. Part of our problem here is that, for some reason, the UK electorate has never really taken the EU Parliament all that seriously. How many of us know the name of our MEP?

Another issue for many of us is that the EU is so large that we feel remote from the decision making process which can appear faceless and bureaucratic and it is no wonder many of us feel helpless when confronted by rules and regulations we find irksome but had no idea were even being discussed, let alone brought into force. That, though, is a feature of the general lack of interest within the UK in what happens in the European Parliament. We tend to react to new EU laws only once they have come into force.

Speaking of EU legislation, Brexit claim that around 60% of our laws are imposed on us by the EU but, as Salmond pointed out in the LBC debate, this figure actually falls to around 13% when you take Westminster Statutory Instruments into account, these being documents by which the Government can pass laws without the inconvenience of having them debated in the House of Commons.

As for the EU laws themselves, the vast majority of these are in the areas of trade and social rights. Things like uniformity of safety standards on electrical equipment, roaming charges on mobile phones and Equality Rights stem from the EU.

AS an example of a proposed new law, the EU wants to set targets for a significant reduction in the number of deaths caused by air pollution. That sounds like a pretty good idea to me. However, it appears the proposals are to be watered down when the law is presented to the European Parliament because one country in particular has been lobbying to have the targets set at a lower level. Guess which country that is? Yep, it’s the UK, the same country that tells its citizens the EU imposes ludicrous red tape on us is happy for more of its citizens to die from air pollution because achieving the targets might be an inconvenience for British businesses. But in terms of the EU Referendum, air pollution is a silent and invisible killer, certainly less visible than the faces of the immigrants we are being told are at the root of our problems so , once again, the positive case for remaining in the EU to benefit from such socially progressive laws will not feature in any debate.

It must be admitted that there are some European directives which might seem unfair but, on the whole, they are not as bad as portrayed by the Brexiters.

So, as far as democracy within the EU goes, I’d like to see more of that and less money spent on wasteful bureaucracy but I’m not yet convinced that the current arrangement is grounds for walking out in a huff.

TTIP, that really scary treaty which masquerades as a trade deal, is perhaps the greatest single reason to disapprove of the EU but thinking Brexit will save us from its consequences is a mistake. Westminster panders to big business and would inevitably sign a TTIP-like deal with the USA at the drop of a hat.

So where does this leave us? Making a decision on how to vote based on the information we are being given is not an easy proposition. The positive case for staying remains rather woolly while the clamours for leaving are often proclaimed by politicians whose general views I find distasteful. That said, there certainly are some valid reasons for voting to leave and I’m sure many of my friends will do so and, quite frankly, it is difficult to argue against some of the concerns, the immigration question excepted.

Sadly, I suspect it could boil down to one’s outlook on life when it comes to deciding where to place that cross on Polling Day. If you are someone who looks outward, with an international perspective, knowing that it is possible to be immensely proud of your own nation but still recognise that people in other countries are not that much different to us even if they speak a different language or have a different colour of skin, then you will be of a like mind with a great many Scots who have always been keen on exploration, travel and trade. You might not like some of the more autocratic aspects of the EU but you will probably not feel as threatened by it as someone who is inclined to be isolationist, inward-looking and fearful of foreigners. That’s a fairly sweeping generalisation, I know, and not how I usually prefer to decide how to vote, but I think it lies at the heart of how many people will vote when it boils down to it.

Which leads me to another fairly minor but rather irritating point. During the LBC radio debate, the show’s presenter, Iain Dale, made a passing comment when the Scottish IndieRef was mentioned. His view, unremarked by either participant in the debate, was that the EURef was a larger issue than the IndieRef. Now, I know I am biased about this but it struck me that a vote which would have resulted in the breakup of a highly-integrated political union which has lasted more than three hundred years and which would have seen the creation of not just one but effectively two new nation states is perhaps more important than the withdrawal of one country from a largely economic trading block of which it has been a member for a little over forty years.

Perhaps what Iain Dale meant was that there are more people eligible to vote in the EURef but I didn’t gain the impression that was what he was implying. It seemed to me that he thought the EURef was more important because it affected his London audience more than Scotland leaving the UK would have done. Perhaps I am wrong and was simply being overly sensitive about a dismissive comment by a London-based media presenter but, for me, it was symptomatic of the self-centred, inward-looking view which seems to dominate in the London bubble, a view which goes a long way to explaining the appeal of Brexit for many people in the South East of England.

So, on balance, I’m still for remaining part of the EU, even if I might need to hold my nose as I put my cross in that box. And you never know, it might result in the ideal outcome for pro-Indie Scots because if England votes narrowly to leave but Scotland votes to remain and the Scottish votes edge the overall result in favour of remaining, you can be pretty sure Westminster will soon come up with a plan for Scotland to become independent. That would put the final nail in Gordon Brown’s claim that Westminster wanted Scotland to lead the UK, not leave it. If Scotland leads the UK to remain while England wanted out, they’ll want shot of us as soon as they can. It’s an unlikely scenario given the disparity in the number of eligible voters but we can always dream.

Terribly, Terribly, Boring & Dull

Posted on June 1st, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

When is anything interesting going to happen in politics? Recently, it’s all been pretty drab and boring. We haven’t even had any ludicrous claims from Scottish Labour apart from a call for the SNP to give up being bad and to join a progressive alliance with Labour; the Party which spends its time attacking everything the SNP say or do.

Other than that, we’ve had petty arguments over the Named Persons’ legislation which seem more concerned with scoring political points than attempting to build a social care system which will protect children.

And then there is the Tory civil war which manifests itself as two versions of Project Fear masquerading as the EU Referendum debate.

Am I the only one who can’t raise much enthusiasm for any of this? It’s not that I’m losing interest in politics, it’s just that the whole thing seems rather petty and pathetic. The only matter of any real interest is the Tory Election Fraud investigations which the BBC are doing their best to downplay which is a scandal in itself.

Let’s hope we get some proper debating points soon but, quite frankly, I’m not holding out much hope.

What The Papers Aren't Saying

Posted on May 26th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

The UK media does a fine job of self censorship. In the past few days we’ve heard all about one Labour MP’s possible election Fraud but the news that at least a dozen Tory MPs are being actively investigated by the Police has been kept rather quiet. Odd, that, don’t you think? Then, when a well known source of anti-Tory information went on twitter to claim that he had access to a much bigger Tory Election fraud story which had the potential to bring down the Government,and this news would break very soon, he mysteriously went very quiet. Of course, he could have been inventing the story but those who like conspiracy theories are already claiming he has been silenced in some way – hopefully just his online access, not personally. But if the story really is that big, why are no media outlets on the case?

Then Scotland was regaled with the news that oil revenues fell to their lowest ever last year. This is hardly surprising given the fall in the price of oil and the additional investment and exploration money being spent in the North Sea, so it’s probably not a shock to anyone. What it did do, though, was allow the “Too Wee, Too Poor" crowd to gloat about how pathetic their country is while conveniently overshadowing the fact that the price of oil has been steadily recovering and has broken the $50 per barrel mark, just as experts predicted it would.

And, finally, we have discovered that the Office of National Statistics has confirmed that the UK has the third highest level of poverty in the EU although, so far, most news agencies don’t seem in much of a rush to report this. For a country that is always boasting about the wealth of its economy and being on the Road to Recovery after the big crash which was, let’s not forget, nearly eight years ago, that’s a pretty damning statistic. Mind you, we were told that we would be on a par with Greece after the IndieRef, so that’s one prediction that has come true. You’d think the media would be crowing about that, wouldn’t you?

Never mind, I’m sure we’ll soon be regaled with lots of photographs of Royal children. That ought to keep the poverty-stricken masses happy.

Flawed System

Posted on May 16th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

We all know that the UK Establishment, actively supported by the bulk of the mainstream media, has long vilified Benefits claimants or, as those of us who are old enough to remember used to call them, people reliant on Social Security.

Part of the reason this mindset has widespread popular support is that many young people who have been lucky enough to obtain full time employment experience jealous anger when they see some of their contemporaries living on Benefits and earning almost as much as they are themselves. When you are slogging your guts out in a demanding job and earning the minimum wage, it is natural that you should feel aggrieved at people who, on the face of it, can’t be bothered to earn a living for themselves and instead live off your taxes.

This is an emotion most of us have experienced at some time in our lives and, indeed, it is often difficult to justify why some people should enjoy any of the comforts of modern living when they apparently have no intentions of contributing to society. Let’s face it, most of us have come across people like that.

The problem with this sort of attitude is that it ignores some wider social issues. For one thing, the majority of people who claim Benefits would rather be in meaningful, well paid employment; it’s just that the media highlights those who they deem scroungers.

Secondly, and very importantly, the gap between the incomes of those who are working and those who rely on Social Security is narrow not because Benefit payments are so high but because income from employment is generally so low. So low, in fact, that a great many people who are in full time employment still need to claim Benefits in order to keep their families at even a fairly modest standard of living. This is a shocking indictment of Westminster policies which, despite the continuing claims of aspirations to “Make Work Pay", instead seem to concentrate most of their efforts on reducing Social Security payments rather than raising incomes to more than a basic subsistence level.

This is the worst feature of the UK employment model. Corporations are pandered to and encouraged by the tax regime and the profit motive to keep wages low. They get away with this because of the low level of the minimum wage and the reluctance of Westminster to enact any legislation which will seriously impact on profits. Even the recent modest increase in the minimum wage has seen some employers make people redundant, citing the minimum wage as the reason. All this does, of course, is pass a further burden onto the State which, because Corporations so often avoid paying tax, means that the majority of working people bear the brunt of the cost through their own taxes.

What no UK Government wishes to acknowledge is that this model is not working. This is because the alternative, compelling employers to pay much higher wages and accept lower profits as well as paying all their taxes, is unpalatable to big business, which means it is unpalatable to Westminster MPs because it is big business which makes the largest Party donations.

Yet, if people were able to earn more, they would pay more income tax. Higher earnings would give individuals more spending power which would boost the economy, and would also reduce the need for the State to top up earnings with the various Tax Credit schemes. As far as the Government was concerned, the combination of higher tax receipts and lower Tax Credit payments would also reduce the burden on the State. It would also mean that those who still rely on Social Security would be earning less than those in work while still being awarded enough to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

But this model is never going to become a reality as long as the neo-liberal consensus governs the minds of those in power. Instead, they know that the working people must be kept divided and this is why those on benefits are so often vilified in the Press. It is classic Divide and Rule.

The other major social factor to bear in mind is that any civilised society ought to have some system in place to help those who, for one reason or another, are unable to help themselves. People doo have disabilities and need extra help; some people become too ill to work; some lose their jobs through no fault of their own; some young people need to leave home or are left destitute for a variety of reasons. If something like that happened to you, wouldn’t you want the State to help you? Of course you would.

So why hate people who are in that situation? Because any system is open to some abuse and, humans being what they are, there will always be some who are able to take advantage. Look, for example, at MPs’ Expenses. The system was abused and only refined when it became public knowledge yet MPs’ Expenses claims are now running at a higher level than they were when the scandal broke.

Look at Offshore Tax Havens and how the rich elite are avoiding tax through these legal but immoral loopholes in the system. Yet we simply shrug and accept this as normal while we take out our frustrations on the people next door who are apparently living off the State while we are working hard to keep food on the table and a roof over our families’ heads.

There isn’t an easy answer to this and certainly no quick fix. It requires a major shift in public awareness and attitudes and this will be almost impossible to achieve while the Right Wing consensus remains in charge at Westminster and the media reflects a Right Wing viewpoint. That doesn’t mean we should give up, only that the argument needs to be made often and clearly. What we need to aim for is a society where we are not jealous of people who rely on Social Security but are thankful that the State is there to help anyone who is in need. If that means putting up with a few individuals who exploit the system, it is still far better than seeing the poor banished to workhouses or left in the streets to starve.

Taking Sides

Posted on May 13th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

As with the EURef, it might be worth taking a look at the protagonists on either side of the Named Person’s arguments to see who it is you are siding with.

So, against the legislation are the BBC, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Telegraph, the Scotsman, the Herald, and Unionist politicians who were originally in favour but decided to speak out against it when they saw a chance to score political points during the election campaign.

Those in favour of the legislation include most Children’s Charities, the majority of people who work in childcare and education, and many children who have experienced the benefits in the four regions where the scheme has been trialed.

Looking at it that way, I know which side I’d prefer to be on.

Told You So

Posted on May 12th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

When IDS resigned and Stephen Crabb took over at the DWP, he said he had no plans for further cuts to Disability Benefits. This site warned at the time that a Tory saying he or she has no plans to do something almost inevitably means that he or she has plans but knows they need to be delayed for a while.

Sadly, it seems the warning was appropriate because Stephen Crabb has told the Work & Pensions Select Committee that he will be publishing details later this year on how to make further cuts to spending on Disability Benefits because he doesn’t think the reforms already announced go far enough.

I hate saying, “I told you so" but what else is there to say?

Say It Again

Posted on May 9th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

So all those pollsters and seat predictors got it wrong. The SNP did not gain a majority in Holyrood. Whether you think that’s a good or bad thing, it shows that you can’t rely on polls.

The constant repetition that the SNP were on track to take all constituency seats and therefore didn’t need Regional List votes may have induced some voters to switch their List vote but it is equally possible that the ludicrous refrain of “One Party State" had a bearing on the matter. What these show is that constant repetition of any statement, however loosely based on fact, can result in it seeping into the social consciousness.

The mainstream media is still at it, telling us that the Ruth Party are not really Tories but that, nevertheless, the Tories have revived in Scotland. Neither of these statements stand up well to scrutiny but that isn’t stopping the media pushing them for all they are worth. That’s because they know a great many people will believe them simply because they are repeated so often. That’s why we need the alternative media and why we need to persuade more people to stop relying on the mainstream for their information.

A Mixed Bag

Posted on May 6th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Everyone is putting forward their initial reaction to the result of the Holyrood election so here’s my contribution.

So far, the media headlines concerning the Holyrood Election begin with phrases like “SNP fail" and “Tory Revival". No doubt this will continue for some time but there is, when you look at the results, a more nuanced appraisal required. No doubt various statistics will be quoted by all the Parties but a few things stand out.

First the good news. UKIP did not earn a seat. Hooray! The Greens increased their presence and Scottish Labour have turned into a rump Party.

One odd feature is the survival of the Lib Dems. It seems some voters don’t mind being represented by a Party with a proven track record of lying and also of facilitating Tory rule in Westminster. Odd, but that’s democracy for you.

The not so good news for those of us who want Scotland to become a normal country is that the SNP did not reach the magic 65 seats required for a majority despite gaining around 156,000 more votes than they did in 2011 and earning more votes than both Labour and Conservatives combined in both Constituency and Regional votes. This, of course, is a feature of the voting system which is specifically designed to prevent any one Party gaining a majority. The fact that the SNP managed it last time was a bit of a fluke but they still came within two seats of repeating the virtually impossible. However, the system worked as intended and the SNP now face the issue of how to proceed in Government; either as a minority, in coalition, or in some sort of Confidence & Supply arrangement.

The greens are the obvious choice for any coalition or informal alliance. Many on the Yes side are consoling themselves that the overall pro-Indie majority is now slightly greater than it was before the election but there are a couple of issues surrounding that view.

First of all, the greens, while supporting Indie in principle, are not as keen on holding a referendum as the SNP. It is conceivable that even a brexit in the EURef might not be sufficient to prompt the Greens to support a call for another IndieRef. There is also the issue that the Tory Westminster Government will regard the lack of an SNP majority as a reason to ignore calls for another IndieRef because, in the Unionist mindset, the Yes movement is entirely concentrated in the SNP and they will claim that Scotland does not support independence because the SNP failed to gain a majority despite the system being rigged to prevent them doing so.

The other issue is more complex and could go several ways. One thing the Greens may well be able to do is exert influence on the SNP on issues like Land Reform, Fracking, Renewable Energy and Council Tax Reform. On all of these, the SNP have been fairly cautious and many of their own members might welcome a more radical stance for which the greens can take the blame if things go wrong and both Parties can try to take the credit if they work.

The problem which might arise is that these more radical policies which the Greens will undoubtedly push for could harden the attitude of the Right Wing voters if they see Scotland diverging even further from UK policies. That stance is hard enough already as yesterday’s vote confirms. It seems that many voters are prepared to support the Conservatives simply in order to continue waving the Union flag and are quite prepared to put up with the policies Ruth Davidson never wants to talk about, like charging for prescriptions, charging students for university tuition, privatising the NHS, cutting Scotland’s budget, refusing to help Scottish industries like steel and shipbuilding, cutting social security benefits, closing down public services, allowing fracking, overseeing a proliferation of food banks, vilifying the Disabled and Unemployed, refusing to aid refugees from warzones where the UK has been involved in bombing their homes, pandering to tax evading Corporations and making the wealthy 1% of the population even richer at the expense of everyone else.

Now, I can understand why someone who is relatively well off thanks to having prospered under the current UK social model would want to preserve that model and would therefore vote Conservative. You may regard that attitude as selfish and greedy but most people look out for themselves first so, while it might be distasteful to some of us, the attitude is at least understandable. What is harder to empathise with is the attitude of the hardline Unionists who seem to have voted solely in order to prevent another IndieRef, irrespective of the consequences. The expression about turkeys and Christmas springs to mind.

Fortunately, though, the Conservatives are not in power in Scotland so we don’t need to face the double whammy of both Westminster and Holyrood attempting to slash public spending. It may be more difficult for the SNP to get every Bill passed but, with cooperation from the Greens, we will hopefully continue to see policies which help mitigate the worst excesses of Westminster cuts. The chance of another IndieRef is virtually gone now so the best we can hope for is another five years of pretty decent government. Despite the claims of the hostile media, the SNP have done a fairly decent job in many areas, especially in improvements to infrastructure such as the Borders railway and the new Forth crossing. Scotland’s NHS is the best performing in the UK and continues to be exempt from the wholesale privatisation in England & Wales, not to mention the Junior Doctors’ strike action which continues south of the Border. Failing shipyards and steelworks have been saved, the worst impact of the Bedroom Tax has been offset and there are advances in childcare provision which should help more women return to work. The SNP are not perfect and they have misjudged a couple of things but no Government is perfect so I’m not going to get too hung up about that, especially because they have accomplished these things despite massive cuts to the Block Grant which Westminster graciously allows us. In general, their policies have been designed to aid the majority, especially the less well off, while not overly upsetting the better off.

As to where we go now, time will tell. It is apparent that the constitutional issue is paramount. That’s down to the Unionist Parties, especially the Tories, who have not stopped banging on about another IndieRef and the need to prevent it. That call has clearly been heeded by some voters. As I mentioned, more radical policies over the next five years, spurred on by the greens, might make the case for Indie even more difficult as the Unionist support digs in against more Left Wing policies.

On the other hand, Ruth Davidson will now lead the main Opposition and this will allow Nicola Sturgeon to highlight the Tory policies which are designed to wreck the universal social benefits the SNP have already introduced. Ruth Davidson, for all that the media love her, isn’t all that impressive when put under pressure on these sorts of issues and some voters may begin to see the reality of Tory rule.

Another interesting feature is how the BBC and STV will react now that the Greens have pushed the Lib Dems into fifth place. Will TV panels now be more balanced when it comes to the inevitable constitutional arguments? Instead of three Unionist MSPs shouting down one SNP MSP, will it be two v two? I suspect not because the TV companies, especially the BBC, have little interest in balance when it comes to the pro-Indie movement.

And, finally, what of Labour’s Scottish Branch Office? Labour, both at UK and Scottish levels don’t seem to have learned the lesson that you can’t out-Tory the Tories. They were used as stooges by better Together and they have suffered from losing pro-Indie supporters to the SNP and anti-Indie supporters to the Tories. They are, in effect, caught between the two and unable to appeal to either. Their only chance of revival would appear to be changing their entire stance and supporting the case for independence. That might regain them some support but trying to be more Unionist than the Tories simply isn’t going to work. But, of course, Scottish Labour won’t change tack because they are controlled by UK Labour who are staunchly Unionist. In a Scotland where the constitutional issue dominates, that has doomed them.

So it’s been quite an election and we now face an interesting future. What was all that we used to hear about Uncertainty?

Eyes On The Prize

Posted on May 2nd, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

At the weekend, I tweeted that the chances of a second IndieRef rest on the SNP gaining a majority in Holyrood once again and that, whatever people’s political affiliations, it would be better not to take the risk of them not achieving that allegedly impossible feat for the second time. This Tweet evoked a fair bit of response and two things were mentioned by people who were having second thoughts about supporting the SNP.

The first came from a fairly lengthy exchange of Tweets from people who object to the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act; the second was a complaint that Nicola Sturgeon had posed for a photograph in The sun, a newspaper which has rightly been excoriated for its appalling stance on the Hillsborough Disaster.

Both of these responses actually confirm the point I was trying to make. In the first place, it is everyone’s right to decide which Party to vote for based on that Party’s policies. If there is one policy you feel particularly strongly about, then you have every right not to vote for that Party. However, I challenge anyone to find a Party with which they agree on every point. Indeed, a Party which might have a different stance on the policy which concerns you might well have other policies you disagree with even more fundamentally. There is also the issue that what a Party says and what it does are not necessarily the same thing. Yes, I’m looking at you, Labour.

As for Nicola Sturgeon appearing in The Sun, that’s a move which is bound to upset some people. The Sun is an appalling newspaper but, much as I would not blame the SNP for refusing to have anything to do with any of the mainstream newspapers or the BBC in view of the constant stream of anti-Scottish and anti-SNP propaganda these outlets constantly churn out, we should not forget that the SNP politicians are just that – politicians. As the estimable David Halliday pointed out on Twitter, politics is the art of persuading people round to your point of view. It is hard enough for the SNP to get their message across against the outrageous media bias but to cut off all contact with media outlets is clearly a step they regard as being one too far. I was at a public meeting once where Nicola Sturgeon was speaking and, when asked about the media, she said that it was what it was and she would have to deal with it, much as she wished it might be otherwise. She obviously hasn’t changed her mind on that. IN her place, I might well let my temper get the better of me and refuse to have anything to do with the rags which pose as purveyors of news in the UK but can you imagine how the already hostile media would react to that sort of stance? The SNP have clearly decided that they need to play the politics game and maintain contact with the media, even though that decision has upset some people. But, if your job is to persuade people to come round to your way of thinking, refusing to speak to them probably isn’t the best way to go about it, no matter how much personal satisfaction it might give you to tell them where to go.

But, to return to my main point. If you support Scottish Independence, the reality of the matter is that the SNP represents our only real choice on Thursday. Refusing to vote for them because you are annoyed about a particular policy or a specific interaction with the media isn’t going to help the Yes movement because the Unionist Parties have all nailed their colours to the Union Flag mast and declared that, whatever the wishes of the people of Scotland, they won’t allow a second IndieRef. This is particularly important when a recent Opinion Poll has suggested that Yes now has a lead in the event that a second IndieRef were to be held soon. Because the reality is that, without a majority, the SNP cannot push through a referendum at all. Putting aside the important constitutional issue that Westminster may well refuse to allow another IndieRef, the Scottish Unionists have made it plain that they would ignore the wishes of the scottish people and would kill the chances stone dead if they can. The only way to avoid this is for the SNP to repeat their astonishing success in gaining a majority of Holyrood seats.

To those who say that they would prefer a wider pro-Yes Parliament and intend voting for the greens, I would point out that, while the Greens have said they would support a Yes vote in a second IndieRef, they have been very ambivalent about whether they would support the call for an actual referendum. It’s an odd stance but that seems to be their official position.

As always in Scottish politics, the Holyrood vote is influenced by the IndieRef question. It boils down to whether you think obtaining independence is the priority or whether you’d rather see a more diverse Parliament. If you want the latter, that is your choice but don’t forget that a more diverse Parliament may well kill off any chances of having another IndieRef.

For me, Independence is the priority. Once we have that, I’m all for changing the voting system to a fully proportional one so that a majority Government is even less likely than it is under the current system. I’d like to see the greens have more seats and I’d like to see some effective opposition from the other Parties who, once the question of independence is off the agenda because we have achieved it, might actually begin to free themselves from the shackles of their Westminster overlords and concentrate on issues which directly affect Scotland.

But we don’t have that yet and we might never get it unless we demonstrate, through our votes, that we support the SNP’s primary objective of obtaining independence and becoming a normal country.

So, to those who are having second thoughts about supporting the SNP because of a single policy or a single newspaper photograph, I’d say again – be sure that is your priority because you might well lose the bigger prize.

Our Imperial Past

Posted on April 25th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

You expect Nigel Farage to make outrageously racist comments but he’s far from the only prominent UK politician to do so. Boris Johnson has rightly been castigated for claiming that Barak Obama’s anti-Brexit comments are inspired by his part-Kenyan ancestry. Not only is this comment typical of the BritNat belief that race lies at the heart of most issues, it reveals something which the media has, so far as I know, not mentioned.

Because Boris Johnson has, in the past, acclaimed the achievements and legacy of the British Empire. But his remark about Kenya shows that he must know that the British Empire was not a benevolent ruler. If it had been, why on earth would he think that someone of Kenyan ancestry would feel any bitterness towards the UK? If the British Empire had been such a good thing, wouldn’t Boris believe that Kenyans must feel some attachment to the UK? To use Kenyan ancestry as a reason for antipathy shows that Boris Johnson must know how brutal the British were when in control of Kenya. Concentration camps, executions and torture were part and parcel of colonial rule. These things don’t normally feature in BritNat thinking so it’s nice to see that, even obliquely, Boris Johnson has acknowledged the deliberate harm the British Empire caused in its colonies.

I don’t for one moment think that President Obama was influenced by his ancestry when making his comments. His primary aim is to ensure that US Corporations retain their hegemony over the EU through deals like TTIP, and scoring points based on ethnic backgrounds was probably the last thing on his mind. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Little Englanders like Boris Johnson for whom ethnicity is central to their belief system. Whatever you think of Obama’s intervention, we should be grateful that it prompted Boris Johnson to show his true colours and also to tacitly acknowledge the harm the British Empire did to its colonial subjects.

Job Security

Posted on April 23rd, 2016

By Wee Hamish

I don’t recall anyone saying all jobs would be safe if Scotland had become an independent country. I do recall Better Together telling us that jobs would only be safe if we stayed in the UK.

Vote NO, they said, to protect jobs in the north Sea Oil industry if the price of oil falls, because only the broad shoulders of the UK can protect these jobs.

Vote NO, they said, to save jobs in HMRC offices in Scotland.

Vote No, they said, to protect Scottish Renewables which are subsidised by the generosity of Westminster.

Vote NO, they said, to protect jobs at the Peterhead Carbon Capture Project.

Vote No, they said, to protect jobs in Scotland’s steel factories.

Vote No, they said, to protect jobs in Scottish shipyards.

How many more lies need to be revealed before a majority of Scots wake up to the contempt Westminster holds us in? Before the IndieRef, Wings Over Scotland warned Scotland would be punished if we voted No. Looks like that prediction was correct.

Don't Vote For Us

Posted on April 21st, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

There is much muttering on social media that the SNP are somehow being unfair by campaigning for voters to give them both votes in the Holyrood elections, as if this is some sort of betrayal of the wider Yes campaign which arose during the IndieRef. Some people seem to think that the SNP should be happy for voters to give their Regional List vote to another pro-Indie Party such as The Greens. I have yet to hear anyone call for Green supporters to give their Regional List vote to the SNP because that would give Scotland its best chance of holding a second IndieRef but this goes to demonstrate how much the “One Party State" lie has infiltrated the public consciousness. Even people who did not bat an eyelid when Labour held a majority of Westminster seats and were able to form coalition Governments in Holyrood now seem to be questioning the SNP’s right to have a majority in Holyrood as if the public who voted in the SNP despite the system being rigged to prevent a majority Government have somehow got it wrong.

The important thing to remember is that the SNP is not the Yes campaign. They are its effective political arm but they are a political party, just like any other. They want to be in Government and will use all the same political ploys to achieve that aim. They just do it better than the other parties and, for all their faults, they do manage to deliver policies which, by and large, many people approve of. With the other Parties having lurched ever further towards the extreme Right Wing, the SNP, who are far from a Left Wing Party, have nevertheless managed to portray themselves as more socialist than the other main parties with the exception of The Greens who haven’t yet been able to garner a large support across the country. Given Scotland’s disillusionment with the Tories and Labour, the SNP are making the most of the current situation. Their desire for political dominance may not please some on the Yes side but we must recognise that the SNP are pragmatic politicians and, as far as I can recall, no political Party has ever gone into an election with the slogan, “Please Don’t Vote For Us!".

Disability Hustings

Posted on April 20th, 2016

By Blind Pew

I was lucky enough to attend a Hustings event hosted by Disability Agenda Scotland the other day. The audience comprised disabled voters from six different Disability Charities, plus their guides and carers, along with representatives from the six charities represented by DAS.

The panel was composed of five politicians from the main parties. These were Jamie Hepburn, SNP; Zara Kitson, Greens; Robert Brown, Liberal Democrats; Michael Shanks, Labour; Graeme Brooks, conservatives.

The main thing that struck me about the event was the cross-Party agreement on almost every matter. There was sympathetic understanding and a general commitment to helping the Disabled from all panel members and there were also some excellent suggestions for how things could perhaps be improved, especially from Zara Kitson of the Greens. There was very little Party political axe-grinding although Robert Brown of the Lib Dems did manage to slip in a mention of State Guardians in his opening remark when he briefly touched on the Named Persons legislation and Michael Shanks of Scottish Labour plugged the 1p tax increase several times, while Jamie Hepburn reminded the audience of measures the Scottish Government have already taken to help Disabled people. Other than that, it was refreshing to see that four of the five panel members used the term, “Social Security" rather than “Welfare Benefits" and agreed that the current system is grossly unfair to the Disabled. As you would expect, the one exception was Graeme Brooks of the Conservatives who insisted that making cuts to Social Security payments was not the UK Government’s main aim but that the Tory Welfare reform was aimed at getting people out of their beds and into work. As if this wasn’t enough to anger people who often struggle physically to get out of bed, he also managed to outrage most of the audience with some bizarre comments that it was Westminster democracy which prevented George Osborne’s budget attempt to impose further cuts and that this wonderful example of democracy was far better than the alternative which, in his mind, would be gangs of people roaming the streets armed with guns. For me, the most worrying thing was that he seemed absolutely sincere in his views. Quite how he squares his professed attachment to Christianity with the actions of the Tory Government is, I confess, beyond me. That apart, though, the discussion was generally positive from all panel members.

The other main feature was the universal anger and sense of helpless betrayal felt by the majority of the audience. The cuts, the move from DLA to PIP and the closure of many lifeline services and centres were of great concern, as was the low pay available to most workers in the care sector and the derisory sums paid via the Carer’s Allowance. Employment was also a major concern, with a general acknowledgement that Disabled people still face considerable issues, not to mention discrimination, when trying to get into work.

The panel were in general agreement that the current system is failing Disabled people but, while it was nice to know that these politicians were listening seriously to the grievances, the one big problem that was often alluded to but rarely discussed in any detail, was the serious funding issue. Of course, this was a Disability Hustings and a detailed discussion on the economic situation would not have been appropriate but the ideas and ambitions of each Party (apart from the Tories) were, unfortunately, all doomed to be hampered by the cuts to Scotland’s budget. Even Labour’s much-vaunted tax increase will not necessarily affect this since they seem to have allocated the estimated increased revenue to cover an awful lot of things and Disability Benefits will inevitably be in competition for whatever money such a system might raise.

This was an interesting and worthwhile event and all the panellists, with one exception, spoke well and were clearly well-intentioned. Hopefully, whichever Party is in power after the Holyrood elections will organise some sort of cross-Party support for further measures to mitigate the effect of the Tory policies which deliberately discriminate against the Disabled. It is a shocking indictment of those policies that the other Parties recognise the need to do something about them but, sadly, unless there is a reversal of the crippling Austerity Economics pursued by Westminster, it seems Scotland is doomed to fight an ongoing battle against these cuts. What was good to know is that, with the exception of the Tories, the other Parties professed a desire to try to do something to alleviate the many difficulties faced by Disabled people. Let’s hope that consensus view has a chance to blossom in the next Holyrood Parliament and the current Opposition Parties turn their fine words into deeds.

Lies, Damned Lies & ...

Posted on April 15th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Today saw the release of some very concerning statistics about life in the UK.

First was the announcement from the Trussell Trust that the use of Food Banks had increased by 2% during 2015, bringing levels to an all time high. That’s bad enough but the figures for Scotland were even more alarming, with a whopping 13% increase in Food Bank usage. Perhaps that is part of that Better Together Union Dividend we were told so much about in 2014.

As if this sad indictment of UK social policies wasn’t dreadful in its own right, I was appalled to hear a lady from the Trussell Trust being interviewed and almost bending over backwards in her attempts not to plame the Tory Government’s Austerity and Benefits Sanctions regime for the ever increasing reliance on Food Banks. Her evasive platitudes about the need for dialogue with Government and perhaps some minor tweaking of systems was quite bizarre. At first, I thought the lady might be an avid Tory herself, a conclusion which didn’t make much sense seeing as she was obviously concerned at the harrowing circumstances which force people to use Food Banks and, equally obviously, she knew the root causes of the upsurge. Then it occurred to me that she would need to be careful what she said because the UK Government has already made it clear that they will cut funding to any charity which is critical of their policies. That’s the sort of Government we elected, folks. Or, rather, the sort of Government we didn’t elect but got saddled with anyway thanks to the result of the IndieRef.

In a further demonstration of British Values, the other snippet of information was that UK Graduates from ethnic minorities are two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than their White counterparts. Following on from the announcement earlier in the week from The Guardian newspaper that, of the ten of its writers who receive the most abuse via Readers’ Comments, eight are women and the two men are black, this news is yet more confirmation of the endemic racism at the heart of British society. It is no wonder that UKIP and the xenophobic UK Press find such fertile ground when they spread their hate.

These statistics show the sad state of the UK today but the very worst thing is that, in all likelihood, the only reaction from the majority of people will be to shake their heads and tut at how deplorable things are, then carry on as if nothing had happened. Because another claim this week was that the voters in Scotland are far more engaged in politics than voters in the rest of the UK. Conditioned by decades (some would say centuries) of media propaganda, British voters seem content to put up with things like the Panama Papers, Food Bank usage, corrupt and lying politicians, rising inequality, low pay, etc., as long as they are fed a diet of Royal Family photo opportunities and episodes of Downton Abbey or Strictly Come Dancing.

What will it take to change this? In Scotland, the IndieRef made people far more politically active and engaged but it doesn’t look as if the EURef will have the same effect throughout the UK because, so far, all we have heard is the same old scare stories and Uncertainty alarms which many Scots have become inured to but which, judging by the comments from BBC Question Time audience members, still resonate with voters elsewhere.

It is all very depressing and, quite frankly, it’s on days like this that we could do with some genuine good news.

Don't Ask Questions

Posted on April 14th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

It’s difficult to get excited about the Holyrood elections. Despite a relentless media campaign against the SNP, they look to be on track to gain another majority which, we should not forget, is supposed to be virtually impossible to achieve once, let alone twice. The only thing that seems likely to prevent this is voter apathy or a draining of votes to other Parties like the Greens or Rise.

Labour’s Scottish Branch Office seems doomed to be kept aloft only by their hardened core of voters and are largely irrelevant despite the BBC’s attempts to push their chances at almost every opportunity.

But what about the Tories? Will they really sneak into second place? They might because they have a better spin machine than Scottish Labour. I know that sounds daft when placed against the BBC’s support for Labour but the Ruth Davidson fan club in the media commentariat is pushing her for all it is worth.

But what does Ruth Davidson have to offer? Nothing much except more cuts to Scotland’ budget, flag-waving from a variety of militaristic vehicles and undying support for the Union. The media, of course, lap this up and we are constantly told that Ruth Davidson is very popular with voters. Nobody seems to question this by pointing to the leadership popularity polls which suggest she is only slightly more popular than Kezia Dugdale which, let’s face it, isn’t setting the bar very high. IN fact, Ruth Davidson is really only popular amongst older voters which is hardly surprising seeing as many of these people are those who find it impossible to shake off their lifelong allegiance to the Union.

As for Ruth’s policies, such as they are, the inherent anomaly at the very heart of their pro-Union stance has already been pointed out on social media but seems to have escaped the attention of the mainstream media. It is, quite simply, this: if the case for Scottish independence is dead, as Davidson claims, why is there a need to promote a case for the Union? Maybe a journalist will ask her one day but I’m not counting on it.

A Cynical Agenda?

Posted on April 8th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

You can’t blame David Cameron for being rich.

You can’t blame him for his father being a tax-dodger.

You can’t really blame him for inheriting money in a manner that was tax efficient.

What you can blame him for his not amending the rules to prevent this sort of immoral tax avoidance being so widespread among the wealthy, not to mention among the world’s criminals.

And you can certainly blame him for not telling the truth when first asked and for continuing to prevaricate as much as possible.

There is, quite rightly, a lot of pressure on him just now, with many calling for his resignation. In a normal country, that might well happen but I suspect Dave will cling on. Besides, the alternative candidates for PM are too horrendous to contemplate. But Westminster operates by riding out storms, by delaying, by distracting and relying on the UK public not to make too much fuss.

Cameron’s problem, though, is that the media are jumping on the bandwagon and I have a cynical explanation for why even this arch-manipulator might be hounded out of office. The thing is that the data containing the details of who is involved in hiding money in tax havens is controlled by journalists. And those journalists work for news agencies which have agendas.

I have yet to see an explanation of why, with over 200 journalists working on this data for over a year, only a handful of prominent Western politicians and public figures have been named and even then only at one remove. Are we really to believe that there aren’t others?

It may be that data will be drip fed in order to prevent overload but that’s not usually how the media works and, when it does, it doesn’t normally take this long. Which suggests there is an agenda at work.

I may well be wrong on this but I expect George Osborne to come under the microscope next but I will be pleasantly surprised if any pro-Brexit MPs are named as being involved because, cynical as this may sound, most of the UK media is controlled by pro-Brexit tax-avoiding millionaires. This may be a convenient way for them to oust Cameron and Osborne and install their pet poodle, Boris Jognson, as PM.

Will the full truth ever come out? I doubt it. But this confirmation of what many of us have been saying about the UK for some time is yet another blow to the increasingly fragile UK. When the skeletons come out of the closet and start hanging the dirty laundry on the washing line, the public has two options. They can either shrug their shoulders and accept that the wealthy can do pretty much what they like or they can use their votes to get rid of untrustworthy politicians. Yet even that second choice is limited because Westminster is corrupt to the core. And we all know what Scotland’s solution to breaking free of that corruption is. Quite frankly, even if some of the scare stories we heard during the IndieRef were to come true, independence surely couldn’t be any worse than being governed by the self-serving hypocrites who rule the roost at Westminster.

Developing Story

Posted on April 4th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

The Panama Papers are receiving the sort of response you’d expect from the UK media. They can’t hush it up entirely but are being very circumspect in making sure that most attention is directed at foreign politicians who are, of course, bad almost by definition.

It remains to be seen whether news will come out of any significant involvement on the part of US or UK politicians and public figures but it would not be entirely surprising if this was neatly swept under the carpet because, after all, the media is owned by the sort of people who might be using offshore tax havens to hide their own ill-gotten gains. I do hope I’m wrong but I suspect the media will either play down any stories through a self-imposed censorship policy or will have pressure applied from Establishment figures to ensure such stories reveal only the identities of a handful of expendable sacrificial scapegoats.

It may be that social media could disseminate any revelations but the problem is that the data is, so far at least, being controlled by media organisations and any information released will be at the discretion of journalists. Let’s hope there are enough of them who have the courage to publish the details.

Whether the full details come out or not, the whole episode merely confirms what we already knew; that the wealthy elite are stashing their money away while telling the rest of us that we need to tighten our belts because there is no money to spend on public services. IN a sense, they are right but at least we now know where all the money has gone. It certainly doesn’t seem to have been trickling down into the economy, does it?

It will be fascinating to see how this story develops or, as I fear, does not develop, over the next few days.

No Plans

Posted on March 29th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Some people might take comfort from the UK Government’s announcement that, following cancellation of the cuts to Disability Benefits which were revealed in George Osborne’s disastrous Budget, they have no plans to reintroduce these cuts at a later date.

But should we take this reassurance lightly? A quick Google search suggests we shouldn’t be too surprised if the cuts to PIP are soon back on the Tory agenda.

For example, the Tories had no plans to:-

cut child Benefit but did it anyway;

raise VAT but did it anyway;

sell off Channel 4 but now say they are considering it;

allow fracking in National Parks in England & Wales but passed legislation permitting this anyway;

privatise the NHS in England but are doing it by stealth anyway;

introduce extensive spending cuts if elected to Government and we all know how that has turned out;

cut Pensioners’ Winter Fuel Allowance then did it anyway;

impose a top-down reorganisation of the NHS in England but did it anyway.

Scrap Educational Maintenance Allowance, then did it anyway.

Now, politicians are often required to adapt their policies in light of changing circumstances but, with a track record like that, it seems the Tories adapt their policies more in line with when they think they can get away with something rather than when circumstances require a rethink. So, cynical as this may sound, don’t be too surprised if cuts to PIP payments reappear in a slightly amended form at some point in the next few months.

Here Comes The Sun

Posted on March 27th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Boris Johnson has been at it again, claiming the Scots are stealing daylight from the English because of our resistance to changing the current system of using Greenwich Mean Time during winter and British Summer Time during summer.

It’s becoming almost an annual event now, and there is little doubt that, sooner or later, the likes of Boris will have their way and we will move either to BST all year round or perhaps even Double British Summer Time, with BST applying during winter and BST +1 applying in summer.

What most of the people arguing for this don’t seem to recall is that there was an experiment with this in the late 1960s. Some of us can remember going to school in the dark, with fluorescent strips on our schoolbags and shining armbands on our coats. It was cold, dark and miserable and the experiment was abandoned after a couple of years.

The odd thing was that, overall within the UK, the increase in road deaths during the dark mornings was offset by a greater decrease in evening road deaths although this was complicated because it coincided with a change to drink drive laws so it was difficult to ascertain whether the evening decrease was entirely due to the lighter evenings.

It is a tricky call but there are a few solutions to it. First of all, it should be remembered that the actual hours of daylight don’t change – it is only the clocks that change. Scotland, being further north, really needs to stick to GMT / BST but if that changes, a simple solution would be for Local Authorities to amend school opening hours so that children continue to travel to and from school in daylight. That might also ease congestion on the roads if other commuters stuck to the traditional 9 to 5.

A more radical solution would be for Scotland to operate in a different time zone to the rest of the UK. NO doubt there would be some initial confusion, not to mention howls of outrage from BritNats at Scotland being different but let us not forget that countries all across the world operate in different time zones and manage it perfectly easily. Just look at the USA where several different time zones apply. It is accepted as normal, although that probably wouldn’t prevent the BritNats from claiming it would be impossible in Britain because we are incapable of managing without the time of day being dictated from London.

The other solution is for Westminster to impose the change across the UK and then sit back and watch the reaction in Scotland. I think this is my favourite one. You can just see the Grievance Meter going through the roof.

Not that this would stop Boris from pandering to the South East of England and imposing the change anyway. Sometimes I almost wish he really would become Prime Minister because he seems to be doing his best to put the final nails in the coffin of the failing Union.

Tick tock.

What It Takes

Posted on March 27th, 2016

By Wee Hamish

What does it take to block a financial programme which is intended to harm the Disabled people in our community?

Is it electing 56 (now officially 54) SNP MPs to oppose the plans in the House of Commons?

Is it setting up online petitions to demand the UK Government does not implement the changes?

Is it scores of Disabled people dying as a direct result of earlier cuts to their Social Security payments?

Is it dozens of newspaper articles highlighting the damaging effects of earlier cuts?

Is it social media campaigns highlighting the names of rich Tory MPs who voted for the cuts while trousering hundreds of thousands of pounds in Expenses claims?

Is it protests outside the House of Commons by Disabled people? Protests which were, incidentally, not broadcast to the nation because of Government censorship rules.

No, it is none of the above because they all happened and George Osborne announced the further cuts in his Budget anyway.

What it took to reverse the decision was the resignation of a single Government Minister who had, until then, happily persecuted the Unemployed and Disabled and who almost certainly had an ulterior motive for his resignation and used the cuts as a handy excuse to break from the Cameron / Osborne camp so that he can side with Boris in the brexit campaign.

That’s all it took. One man resigning.

Don’t get me wrong – I am not complaining about the cuts being stopped, just about the way they were stopped. The Tories ignored every protest, every bit of proof that their cuts were killing people and causing misery for thousands until it actually affected their own factions. If that’s how British democracy works, I’d rather we lived under a different system or, preferably, a different country.

A Song For Scotland

Posted on March 25th, 2016

By Tcswim

In this time of bitter sorrow

Forget the loss. Work for tomorrow !

Come gie us an honest heartfu’ song?

Tae mak us feel that we belong

Confident aye; Independent? (sigh).

But Listen! From sea and munro

from Kelso to Thurso

On wind and tide

On Tweed, Tay and Clyde

None but ourselves can make us whole

None but ourselves can heal the soul

Let the folk tide bring us hame

Leave behind auld Longdone’s shame

Wi’ it’s Wasteminster arsetocracy;

a politricks hypocrisy;our famed damokracy.

Scotia is still in birthin’ pains

In this big world o’ Adams weans

Let us sing the great song,

That echoes in the bone

sing it like yon Davie’s stone

“Freedom Come all ye"

Cry it on the lonely wind

In housing schemes ahent the blind

On mountain tops let us sing

Feel the spirit a Dr. King

Sing it wi’ drams or cups a tea

Cross glens an toons on oily sea

We can, we should be

Yes dear Lord… mak us free!

Aye, free fae endless poverty

fae a persistent unfair society

from posh-built inequality

an unjust corrupting economy

auld hardships and a false modernity

Bringing new forms of auld misery

Built on shibboleths of prosperity

In a Scotland built by Mundell-Fluffy?

Or some other labour-tory numpty?

No not for you. Not for me.

A Union land of hope and glory?

Not for you…not for me!

Only Scottish sovereignty!

One destiny! LIBERTY!

SNP SNP! Make us FREE!

A Taxing Day

Posted on March 24th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

So we’ve heard the SNP’s plans for Income Tax and Labour’s plans for scrapping the Council Tax. Of the two, it must be said Labour’s is the more radical as the SNP demonstrate, once again, that they are not nearly as Left Wing as the media would have you believe.

That media has, of course, been quick to decry the SNP as very bad indeed, castigating them for punishing high earners by not passing on the UK Chancellor’s proposed increase in the higher rate tax threshold while simultaneously wailing that they have not imposed a 50p top rate to get more money out of those high earners. Do you ever get the feeling you just can’t win?

I can understand why the SNP have declined to introduce a 50p tax rate in Scotland when the rest of the UK does not have one, especially since their research suggests that it would only take around 1,000 of the 18,000 or so high rate taxpayers to quit Scotland for the policy to be rendered pointless.

But does taxation cause people to move? Across the world, different countries have different levels of taxation but it does not generally cause mass migration. For example, Poland has much lower rates of tax than the UK but the general movement of population is from Poland to the UK, not the other way around. This is because people move for work. We in Scotland should know this since too many of our young people move to London in search of work in spite of the much higher cost of living there due to high property and rental prices.

On the other hand, Scots tend to pay more for things like fuel and groceries due to higher transportation costs but, again, this hidden cost does not generally cause people to up sticks and move.

In broad terms, then, people move in order to find work, not to escape taxes, so perhaps tax rates are not the driver that the media tell us they are.

There is, however, a major caveat to this. The problem is that wealthy people on high incomes are more likely to move jobs and, all other things being equal, an increase in their tax burden might just persuade many of them to move. This decision will be made easier because relocating from Scotland to England or Wales is much less of an upheaval than moving to, say, Poland.

But it isn’t as simple as that. Would these individuals give up their high pay jobs when they move? If so, somebody else would presumably need to replace them and therefore the tax would be paid, just by a different person. The alternative is that the original jobholder remains in post but commutes from England, thus probably paying more in travel costs than they are saving in tax. That doesn’t seem logical, does it, especially for people for whom money is the principal motivating factor?

The problem is that we won’t know what would actually happen unless we introduce a top rate of 50p. So the SNP have stuck to the cautious centre ground, with just a little tinkering which won’t really affect that many people and means that most will continue to pay the same amount of taxation they have been paying so far.

As for Labour’s Council Tax replacement, that sounds grandiose but actually it’s just a simplification of the existing system since it is based on property values, just like the Council Tax, so it’s not all that radical. In principle, it sounds reasonable, even though it will mean the so-called “Squeezed middle" Labour are always on about paying a lot more than they do at the moment.

My main issue with the proposal is that it takes no account of regional property values. So, for example, someone in a small flat in Edinburgh or Aberdeen, where prices are high, could be paying the same amount as someone living in a three-bedroom detached house in a rural area, or a semi in a town outside theCentral Belt.

Others have gone into the plan in some detail and pointed out its other flaws but, of course, the most important thing to remember about Labour’s proposal is that it doesn’t matter because they haven’t got a hope of being in a position to implement it, even if it had no flaws.

Of course, the problem with taxation is that, whatever system you put in place, someone will be worse off and you can bet the media will be able to track that person down so that they can proclaim the unfairness to the world. (Or, at least, to Scotland).

There is no such thing as a perfect taxation system but we need to get away from this notion that tax is a bad thing. It is essential to the running of the public services we all demand and, quite frankly, those who can afford to pay a bit more should be compelled to do so in order that the burden can be relieved on those who are currently penalised by all sorts of taxation. Not only that, our culture needs a major shift so that those who pay more in tax because they can afford to do so, should take pride in the fact that they are contributing to the overall wellbeing of the country. That’s a long way off but it’s an aspiration to aim for and really should occupy our minds more than simply bickering over tax rates and structures.

When We Were Wee

Posted on March 22nd, 2016

By Tcswim

When we were wee we were forced to ask for pocket-money

“There! That is all you will get Jock-Johnie

Don’t ask for more there isn’t any!"

We hated to beg:-the awfie shame

“And forced to say, ‘thank-you’ to big Daddy."

Oh, how we want to be on oor ain; never to hae tae beg again

Too often oor hand, palm upwards formed a begging bowl

-an empty glass

making us feel shame: a kind of anger in the soul

and in our class

Now turn the hand over

Pull the fingers together

Beg no longer sister or brother

Look! The fist is stronger

Toasting The Lords

Posted on March 21st, 2016

By Tcswim

A toast to the House of Lords

And still they fill the House of Lords/

With greedy privilege & dirty frauds/

All seated on their well paid arses/

Welfare for the ruling classes

Labour henchmen & insiders

Tory bagmen business bribers

Pals of Gideon and Dave lickers

Friends of Charlie, robes nae knickers

Power handed to the unelectable

Noble but not respectable

Clowns in this corrupting circus

With power handed out to fk us

Who will rid us of this vermin

Dressed in arrogance and stained ermine

We can be rid of this subservience

You got it ! Independence!

Still Digging

Posted on March 17th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Everyone knows that old saying about stopping digging when you are in a hole. Everyone except George Osborne, it seems.

On the face of it, his budget yesterday was cautious, unambitious and perhaps even a little populist. It must be said that it contained a handful of measures which few people would grumble about. For example, raising the Personal Allowance is a help to all taxpayers and the cuts to North Sea Oil taxes are both welcome and overdue, even if Gideon couldn’t resist announcing that the SNP are bad when he falsely claimed that such tax cuts could only be granted by the broad shoulders of the UK, completely ignoring the very obvious fact that any sensible Government would have built up an oil fund during the good years so that such measures could be taken without placing any additional stress on the economy during times of low oil prices.

But it is the Sugar Tax that has caused the biggest stir. To be honest, I don’t have too much of a problem with this. Like other measures such as the 5p charge for carrier bags, the smoking ban and the reduction in the Drink / Drive limit, the tax is intended – at least notionally – to alter society’s behaviour by reducing the consumption of readily available soft drinks which contribute to problems of obesity and dental decay which plague society, particularly among the less well off. If it helps address some of the problem then it is a good idea and, quite frankly, it is worth trying but it must be acknowledged that there is a risk that, like Tobacco Duty on cigarettes, it may not reduce consumption and might become simply another way of raising taxes. All in all, though, I think this tax needs to be tried.

Gideon’s master stroke has been to focus attention on this “Sugar Tax" and thus deflect scrutiny from his other measures. It is in these other aspects of the Budget that we see Osborne’s lack of imagination and adherence to Tory ideology.

First of all, he has continued his attacks on the Disabled. Those people who are on reasonable incomes who might be celebrating the rise in the 40p tax threshold might want to consider that the money they will save is effectively being taken from the pockets of Disabled people who can barely afford the cut to their Benefits. This is pure Tory ideology, as is the proposed cut to Corporation Tax which will mean that companies will be paying a lower tax rate than the consumers who pay VAT on the goods and services the Companies provide.

As with so many Tory measures, the burden of taxation is being switched to the general public, with the better off benefitting most and the Disabled being unfairly targeted once again.

But, although these measures are deplorable from a societal point of view, they are not the worst aspect of the Budget. Put simply, Osborne has stuck to his Austerity agenda when the majority of economists have long been saying that contracting the economy by cutting Government spending is only going to exacerbate the problems of slwoing growth and declining tax revenues. This is Osborne’s greatest failing and, while he will insist that any problems are due to international factors, the truth is that the UK economy is struggling mostly as a result of his own stubborn refusal to abandon a failing policy. It’s a short-sighted view which will only lead to further economic problems as tax revenue continues to fall. That will make Osborne’s Deficit reduction programme more difficult to achieve which will result in him cutting spending even further, which will continue the downward spiral as tax revenue slumps even further. This is a time when the economy should be stimulated, not held in check.

Quite simply, Osborne is in a hole and he is still digging.

Spot The Difference

Posted on March 14th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

I’m pleased to hear that Nicola Sturgeon plans a charm offensive to push the positive case for Scottish independence and win over enough No voters to swing the next Referendum – whenever that comes about. It is about time the Scottish Government took a positive stance on this and stopped simply reacting to Unionist attacks. We have seen over the past eighteen months that most of the scare stories and lovebombing we were subjected to during the IndieRef campaign were little more than bluster and lies, so the next campaign, when it begins, really ought to put the pressure on the unionists to explain what is so good about Tory rule and austerity, waging war against Muslim countries and strutting about on the world stage as if Britain still possessed an Empire.

However, wile I welcome the news, I believe Nicola Sturgeon has a difficult task ahead of her. That is because, as the recent media frenzy over the latest GERS figures has shown, there is and always has been one major and fundamental difference between the attitudes of Yes and No voters. Put simply, the vast majority of Unionists are enthralled by money and finances. Nothing else matters to them and appeals to broader issues such as equality or a fairer society mean nothing to them.

Money is important, of course, and it would be foolish to deny this but, as many of us have learned over the past few years, much of the rhetoric spouted by politicians is wildly inaccurate because their comparisons of a nation’s finances with a household budget are utterly meaningless. As many commentators and economists have pointed out, a country’s finances do not operate in the same way as a household budget.

Sadly, this reality will not prevent Unionist politicians and journalists repeating the false claims ad nauseam and those who have grown up under and benefitted from a system where the acquisition of wealth and material goods is the only purpose in life are going to be difficult to persuade that a fairer redistribution of wealth would actually benefit the entire country.

It’s going to be a long, hard slog and we all need to keep spreading the word that the prospects for Scotland would be much brighter if it could break free of the stifling Westminster rule that has, after three centuries, left our nation apparently impoverished to such an extent that, uniquely among the nations of the world, we would not be able to survive on our own.

Tory Values

Posted on March 10th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

So the SNP are being blamed for defeating the Tory Bill which would amend Sunday Trading hours in England and Wales.

There is no doubt that, whatever excuses the SNP puts forward for voting against this, it has political repercussions in widening the divide between England and Scotland and in fostering the mutual antagonism between the two countries but there are a few points which I think it is worth making.

First of all, as far as I can gather, this Bill was not deemed to be English only under the EVEL measures the Tories brought in. If that is the case, it is either a blunder of huge proportions by the Tory Government or a tacit admission that there is indeed a knock on effect on Scottish workers’ rights. On which point, those SMP concerns could surely have been addressed by granting some sort of opt out to the Scottish Government but, of course, it is not Westminster policy to devolve power over workers’ rights. This gave the SNP the opportunity to claim a reason to vote on the matter and, let’s face it, if they are elected MPs, why should they not vote?

Secondly, we must not forget that 56 MPs cannot prevent the Tories pushing through any laws they like since they have an absolute majority. For this Bill to be defeated, Labour had to change their habit of abstaining on everything and actively oppose it – which they did because the Unions were very much against the proposal.

Even that would not have been enough, though. What tipped the balance was the 27 Tory MPs who voted against the measure on the grounds that Sunday was a traditional family day.

The headlines should therefore be more focused on the Tory rebels than the SNP but that, of course, is not how the media works in Scotland.

There is, though, one additional comment I’d like to make on this and it’s something others have mentioned online, and that is the attitude of the Tory rebels. These people must have very skewed moral values since they are quite prepared to vote down a Bill on Sunday Trading in order to preserve the sanctity of the Sabbath but they would not vote against measures which reduced ESA payments to disabled people by £30 per week. Maybe that’s one of those British Values we keep hearing about.

Migrant crisis?

Posted on March 7th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Some readers might recall Norman Tebbitt, a member of Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, telling unemployed Britons to get on their bikes and look for work. In other words, the very essence of the market-driven Tory philosophy is that people should be economic migrants.

Yet what happens when millions of migrants turn up wanting into Europe? The word, “migrant" becomes a term of abuse. Maybe it’s because they are walking instead of riding bicycles that they are viewed as not properly following the Tory creed of migrating to find work. Heaven forfend that the sole reason they are denigrated so much is that they are foreigners.

But wait a moment. Are these people economic migrants? Well, a few of them might be but they will be a tiny minority because the vast bulk of these people are refugees from a war zone and the most appallingly stupid comment from today’s Tory Cabinet Ministers is that these people will remain at home if they are sent back. Seriously? You expect people to live in a war zone? A war in which, it must not be forgotten, the UK is playing an enthusiastic part by dropping bombs, using drones and supplying weapons and munitions to Saudi Arabia.

The fact that the Tory Press and the BBC in particular refer to these people as migrants is a repeated attempt to portray them as evil foreigners intent on taking British jobs and claiming British benefits. This perception could not be further from the truth but the BBC continues to call them migrants in an ongoing attempt to demonise them.

David Cameron, of course, has not been slow to use this human tragedy for political ends by making the absurd claim that the reason the UK has not been inundated with migrants is that the UK is not part of the Shengen free movement territory and so is able to protect its borders. It must have escaped Call Me Dave’s notice that Britain is an island and therefore more difficult to reach.

Having said that, one wonders how long it will be before some enterprising French fishermen begin transporting refugees across the channel. If they did, the Tories should applaud such enterprising initiative but they probably wouldn’t do that because, well, the French are foreigners.

The most concerning thing here is the attitude of nearly all the European countries. Only a small fraction of the Syrian refugees are heading for Europe. Most go to Lebanon, where around 25% of the population is made up of refugees. Yes, that’s 25%! Yet Europe’s response is to build fences and hire more security guards to keep refugees out while the politicians hold emergency summits to discuss what should be done about what they insist on calling a Migrant Crisis. The one thing you can be sure of is that not a single one of them will come up with the suggestion that we should maybe stop bombing their country and supplying arms to the rebel forces. OK, President assad is not a nice person but surely this crisis has reached the stage where peace is more important than the political leanings of the local dictator.

The whole sorry mess is typical of Western European attitudes to the Middle East. We created the mess but when people try to escape from the horror we caused, we wash our hands of it and do our best to keep them out.

There is no easy solution to this disaster but one can’t help thinking that our politicians seem hell bent on making the whole thing worse.


Posted on March 3rd, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

One of the enduring complaints many Scots have is the tendency among some English public figures to misuse the terms “British" and “English". It’s a point of apparently petty annoyance but words are important and how they are used can influence people.

The terms “Britain" and “British" are particularly troublesome since Britain is a geographical area and everyone born on the islands can be termed British. The problem arises because the official name of the United Kingdom is Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is a bit of a mouthful and therefore usually shortened to “Britain" for convenience.

However, the conflation of the terms, “England" and “Britain" stems from the Victorian era when the Empire grew to its greatest extent. Many writers of the time use the terms interchangeably and this deep-rooted habit dies hard for many.

Of course, different people have different ideas of what “British" means. We naturally tend to associate it with our own experiences but a problem arises because what those who live in the culturally dominant South East of England mean when they say “British" is not what many people from other regions of the UK mean. However, with control of the media, this South East England vision of Britain has been imposed all across the UK and is often presented to foreign visitors as the exemplar of what Britain is.

But why raise this now? Only a few public figures ever actually make the mistake of employing the wrong word these days, don’t they?

You would think so, wouldn’t you? But, sadly, the Tory vision of One Nation is gradually creeping into TV programming, especially on the BBC. You may have noticed the growing number of Union Flags appearing in TV shows and certainly many people have commented on the number of programmes with “British" in their title. Those, however, are small issues compared with what I saw recently when I watched a BBC Timewatch Special on the life of Queen Elizabeth I.

There is no denying that Elizabeth I was an important figure in British history, her influence and the result of her dying childless having a profound effect on Scotland as well as England. The trouble with this particular programme, which was allegedly a historical documentary, is that the presenter seemed very confused about which nation Elizabeth I was ruler of. There was much talk of “Our Nation" which was fair enough given that the presenter was English, although the BBC is supposed to broadcast all across the UK so the presentation was a little patronising. There were some references to England but there were even more to Britain and anyone with no knowledge of Elizabeth’s reign would have been forgiven for thinking that she ruled a United Kingdom of Great Britain. This was brought to a head when the presenter proudly proclaimed that Elizabeth developed the British Navy and that Britain defeated the Spanish armada.

Wow! Talk about rewriting history. It must be admitted that the English Navy which was really begun by Elizabeth’s father, Henry VIII, became the mainstay of the British Navy but the ships Elizabeth built were English, not British, and it was the English Navy which defeated the Armada because Scotland was not at war with Spain.

It is one thing for British Nationalists to portray their own values of what it means to be British but an organisation like the BBC really ought to take more care when presenting what is supposed to be a factual account of historical events but which actually turned out to be little more than British propaganda. It is bad enough that I can’t watch BBC News because of its bias but when the documentaries fall to such low standards of accuracy it really makes me wonder whether it is worth watching the BBC at all.

Scottish Six

Posted on February 26th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

So a Scottish Six is back on the agenda despite having been resisted for decades, the principal objection seeming to be that Scots are incapable of producing a genuinely national and international news programme without turning it into some sort of parochial pastiche of The Broons or Gregor Fisher’s portrayal of the Outer Hebrides Broadcasting Corporation.

To counter these claims, Stuart Cosgrove has written a truly excellent piece for Bella Caledonia and, if you haven’t read it already, you can find it at:

On the other hand, Derek Bateman, who used to work for BBC News, has highlighted some of the issues such a programme would face although these are, as ever, more political than practical. You can read his article at:

Of these two views, Stuart Cosgrove’s is the more positive but I fear he will be proved wrong. There is a good reason a Scottish Six has been resisted and it is because the London-controlled BBC do not want to relinquish editorial control because it could be seen as yet another step on the road to Scottish independence. The Scottish Press are vocal in their derision of the very idea of a Scottish Six, claiming that Scots are incapable of producing such a programme without the benefit of the London media lens to interpret global events for them but, of course, the Scottish Press, almost universally Unionist in outlook, also have a vested interest in ensuring that Scots only see the world as filtered by London, a task which the majority of journalists appear to believe the newspapers do entirely adequately despite the continuing slump in their sales which, in any other industry would suggest to the management that something is very wrong indeed with the product they are serving up.

As for a Scottish Six, there is no technical reason why Scotland could not produce this successfully but there is one major obstacle and that is the BBC themselves. London will not relinquish control easily and any programme served up will probably be intended either to fail to deliver what people want from a truly national and international news service or, more likely, will become just another tool for the Unionist Establishment to ram Westminster propaganda down our throats. Despite Stuart Cosgrove’s optimism, I foresee a programme which will be heavy on stories about the Royal family and the happenings at Westminster, with international news being restricted to items confirming how evil foreigners are. IN fact, when you put it like that, it does rather suggest that the narrow-minded, insular and parochial news is already being serve up by BBC London on a regular basis. Quite what difference a Scottish Six would make is difficult to identify, except that there would be a lot more stories about which Old Firm footballer / manager / ex-player / fan had said what about which other Old Firm footballer / manager / ex-player / fan. Quite honestly, I could do without that. So, if a Scottish Six does become a reality, I suspect I will stick to my current policy of never watching the BBC News because of its enormous propaganda content.

Hobson's Choice

Posted on February 24th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

The EURef is going to be horrible and many of us probably feel like outsiders because the two sides are, essentially, two tribes of Tories carrying out their great dream of arguing over Europe and dragging the entire country into the debate.

Not that it is going to be much of a debate. Tories being what they are, they only understand one tactic and that is scaremongering. Both sides are going to do it and the media will egg them on, providing ever more lurid and sensational claims about the merits of remaining or, more likely, leaving.

What can we do? Not a lot, to be honest. Cameron has shown his usual contempt for the so-called family of nations by setting a date for the EURef which suits England but doesn’t suit any of the other three countries. We’re going to have to fight the Holyrood elections under the shadow of the EURef which the BBC will ensure takes precedence.

On the plus side, there is not really much incentive to listen to the xenophobic ranting of the Outers or the patent scaremongering of the Inners. It will be Project Fear all over again but the simple truth is that Scotland should vote to stay in the EU either to trigger a second IndieRef or to ensure that we stay in so that we don’t need to negotiate rejoining when we do become independent.

Some people may be worried about aligning themselves with Cameron and Osborne but we need to put those concerns aside. After all, look at who is on the other side; Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan Smith and George Galloway. Take comfort that you’ll be opposing them.

And to those who say that the arguments for leaving the EU are the same as the arguments Yes used in claims for Scottish independence, I’d point out that there is one major difference. Whatever the Outers might say, the UK is already a sovereign state, with representation in all sorts of international organisations from the EU to the UN. Scotland isn’t. WE do not have sovereign state status. So, while the arguments may sound the same and be presented in the same way, there is a world of a difference.

So let’s take the chance to sit back and have a laugh at the pathetic, small-minded xenophobia of Little England as the EURef becomes ever more bizarre and outrageous. That way we can avoid the stress and hopefully end up with the result that we need.

So Special

Posted on February 22nd, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Everyone likes to feel special. It gives us a nice, warm glow when we receive treatment that is above and beyond what we expected. Equally, however, nobody likes hearing someone else demand special treatment simply because of who they are. Nothing gets up our noses more than hearing someone whine, “Don’t you know who I am?"

Which is why the spectacle of David Cameron returning from his EU renegotiation summit proudly proclaiming that the UK would be given special status within the EU was not so much reminiscent of the triumpal begotiations of a skilled diplomat as of a spoilt six-year-old having a tantrum at a children’s party and demanding more treats than everyone else because ... well, because they’re special.

It is, of course, a feature of the British Establishment psyche to believe that Britain is superior to all other nations and should be accorded special treatment on the rather peculiar grounds that we’ve spent several centuries invading other countries and telling them how to behave while exploiting their people and resources for our own benefit. Quite why this makes us special is a bit of a mystery.

A bigger mystery is why the other members of the EU put up with this pathetic attitude and seem to bend over backwards to massage Cameron’s ego in an attempt to keep the UK in the EU. Yes, it may well be about the money and it may also be down to typical political pride in that they don’t want to see the EU break up at all but the entire charade was hardly an edifying spectacle. Of course, the EU may well intend to do to Cameron what he did to Scotland by making promises which they will fail to keep as soon as they’ve got the Referendum result they want. Now, wouldn’t that be fitting?

Shifting Boundaries

Posted on February 13th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

The Tory Government at Westminster are pushing through changes to electoral boundaries and this is causing a bit of a stir. However, it must be said that the current arrangement is extremely unfair in what is already a poor attempt at democracy using the First Past The Post voting system.

So what is it the Tories are trying to change and why? Well, it seems that the current constituency boundaries mean that some MPs have as few as 30,000 voters in their constituency while others have over 100,000. That is patently unfair because it could mean that an MP gains 100% of the vote in his small constituency and is elected despite having received fewer votes than a losing candidate in a much larger constituency. The Tories want to redraw the boundaries so that every constituency has roughly the same number of voters.

It must be said that this idea seems practical and fair – within the undemocratic system of FPTP. But if you are going to have a FPTP voting system, it should at least ensure that each MP has roughly the same number of constituents.

So, fair enough, the Tories have a valid reason for making the changes. They are, of course, putting a cost-saving spin on it by claiming that the overall number of MPs will reduce from 650 to 600. That may sound like a good idea but dressing it up as saving taxpayers’ money is a typical Cameron misdirection. When you consider how many additional members of the House Of Lords he has put in place, the overall number of legislators, and the cost of maintaining them, will have increased despite any cut in the number of MPs. In fact, there are already more unelected lawmakers than elected ones in the UK Parliament. That’s not what most people would regard as democratic.

However, the biggest problem with this proposal, and another reason the Tories want to push it through before the next General Election, is that the region of the UK which will return most MPs is the region which is most densely populated, i.e. London and the South east of England. And guess where the Tories get most of their support from? Less densely populated areas like Scotland will return fewer MPs and so have even less influence than they have now, if such a thing were possible.

So, if this change goes through, and there seems every likelihood that it will, we face the prospect of permanent Tory Governments. Isn’t that a scary thought? What a pity we had no way of escaping this rule by the Plutocracy.

Pure Scunnered

Posted on February 10th, 2016

By Jimmy

Ah’m pure scunnered. Ma Facebook timeline has been fu’ o’ folk grumblin’ aboot the Scottish Government makin’ cuts to cooncil budgets. Now, Ah dinnae mind folk haein’ a winge but what gets ma goat is that these are the same folk who insisted we needed tae vote No in the IndieRef even though they kent full weel that this would mean cuts tae the Scottish budget.

Whit Ah’d like tae ken is whit these numpties use for brains. If thon pointy-lugged chap fae Star Trek was still aroond, he’d mebbe gie them a lesson in logic but all Ah can say is, “Gie’s a break!".

On Second Thoughts

Posted on February 3rd, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Having condemned Kezia Dugdale’s proposed 1p tax rise yesterday, I’ve had time to give the matter some second thoughts. In the interests of being fair to Scottish Labour, I have slightly amended my view.

Being totally honest, anyone with a moral conscience should not object to contributing a bit more in tax if it benefits the wider society they live in. Our propensity to demand lower taxes is a symptom of the selfish, greed-driven mindset which has dominated the UK for the past three and half decades and it’s about time we tried to change that perspective. When you ask yourself why £10 per month is better off in your pocket than in helping to fund schools, hospitals and other essential public services, complaining about a 1p tax rise makes you look more than a bit selfish.

But that’s about as far as my approval goes because there are a lot of issues around Labour’s proposal.

First of all, let’s not forget that the “Me First" culture is deeply ingrained in our society where a great many people have grown up knowing no other political philosophy. Don’t forget that, during the IndieRef, a poll revealed that many Scots would base their decision not on what they thought was best for the country as a whole but on whether they would personally be £10 a week worse off. That was risible at the time but it was also a revealing insight into how too many people make political decisions. However much we might deride such a standpoint, though, it is a fact of life and, from this perspective, Scottish Labour really ought to have sold their tax plan a bit more wisely. Simply telling people that 1 out of 4 workers would not pay any extra tax doesn’t cut it. If you want to persuade people to go along with tax rises, you really need to work hard at educating them as to your reasons.

Whatever Labour’s reasons, though, their new policy simply won’t work because it would hit the poorest in society hard. Their proposal for a rebate for the lowest paid workers shows that they understand this but what they have completely failed to acknowledge is that the so-called extensive new powers which might or might not be granted to the Scottish Government do not include any provision for authorising tax rebates, so it would need to be an entirely new system which administered these rebates which might themselves be taxed. And let’s not forget, as I pointed out yesterday, there is still no guarantee that any additional tax revenues would actually benefit Scotland in any case.

Naturally, the thing opponents of Labour’s plan have concentrated on is its impact on the lowest paid. While paying a bit more tax may be the socially responsible thing to do, £10 per month is a lot of money to far too many people and could make the difference between scraping by and needing to rely on a food bank. That’s why any tax increases need to be progressive, passing the burden onto those who can most afford it. But the devolved tax arrangements which the Scottish Government do have are insufficient to allow the introduction of progressive tax increases. With our extensive new powers, it’s everybody or nobody who gets hit by a tax increase. This, as mentioned yesterday, is the Tory tax trap which Kezia has blundered into.

As if that weren’t bad enough, Labour’s position on this is ironic in the extreme. Having spent the better part of two years telling Scots to vote to be controlled by Westminster or we would pay more in tax, they are now trying to tell us we need to pay more tax because we are controlled by Westminster. Honestly, the script writers for Yes, Prime Minister would have struggled to come up with something so breathtakingly inept. When you add this to the failure to understand just how much people have been conditioned to react negatively to higher taxes, Labour’s plan becomes farcical.

In summary, then, I think the proposed tax increase is morally justified, practically unworkable and politically inept. That’s about as favourable a view I can take on it. Not that it really matters, since Labour’s chances of forming the next Scottish Government are minimal at best and this half-baked policy is one of the reasons why.

A Penny For Your Thoughts

Posted on February 2nd, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

You’d think Scottish Labour would have learned by now that going along with the Tories is a bad idea but no, they still don’t seem to have learned the lesson of Better Together because Kezia Dugdale is now calling for an increase of 1p on Scottish Income Tax in order to offset Tory cuts to the Scottish budget.

Needless to say, this Labour policy announcement has been prominently featured by BBC Scotland, with Kezia playing the line that, faced with either using the new powers of the Scottish Government or implementing Tory cuts, she’d rather use the powers.

This is disingenuous on several levels.

For a start, Kezia’s chances of being First Minister after the Holyrood elections are, thankfully, minimal, so it’s easy to announce a policy which you know you will never be required to implement.

Secondly, although Scottish taxpayers are all having new Tax Code identifiers applied, there still doesn’t seem to be a satisfactory fiscal arrangement to ensure that any additional taxes actually flow through to the Scottish Government. That’s a technicality which will hopefully be sorted soon but it’s a pretty big technicality.

Thirdly, there is a fundamental contradiction in any policy like this. Having spent the IndieRef campaign insisting that Scotland must be run from Westminster, Labour are now proposing to penalise Scottish taxpayers for having voted the way they wanted us to. It’s hardly an endorsement of the “Better Together" mantra as it seems Scots will actually be “Worse Off Together". Thanks, Labour.

Finally, and most importantly, Kezia is playing the Tory game. How often have you heard Cameron and Osborne issue challenges to the SNP to use their extensive new powers and stop complaining? Putting aside the fact that the new powers are only extensive in the imaginations of the Tories and the Scottish media, this is exactly what the Tories want. They reason that Scottish voters will soon become fed up of the SNP Government if they are paying higher taxes than any other citizens of the UK. Desperate to return to the safety of the UK, voters will kick the SNP out, a Unionist Party will replace them and all will be well with the Tory world. Of course, the Scottish electorate might not see it that way and an increase in Income Tax might just have the opposite effect, forcing people to confront the issue of whether we would be better off as an independent country. However, that is a moot point since, so far at least, the SNP do not seem inclined to test the matter.

As for Kezia, she’s doing the Tories’ work for them, painting a picture of Scotland as the highest tax region among the nations of the UK. She’s walked straight into the trap the Tories have set and she’s done so willingly. If we give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she is not completely stupid, the only other conclusion must be that she is happy to play the stooge for her Better Together chums by doing their work for them and, in so doing, has hammered another nail in the coffin of Scottish Labour.

A Question Of Sovereignty

Posted on January 30th, 2016

By Dan Iron

It's now looking likely that the promised referendum to decide whether the United Kingdom either leaves or remains in the European Union will take place sometime in 2016.

Recent opinion polls have shown that it is a possibility, but only a possibility, that Scotland will vote to remain, while the UK as a whole will vote to leave.

Of course it's early days, but we in the Independence movement and the Scottish government should work out a position to take if that is the outcome.

Nicola Sturgeon has already said that if there were to be an overall vote to leave, then each constituent part of the UK would have to vote to leave too. We can expand on this position by saying:-

1. We have voted to remain citizens of the EU.

2. In 2014 we voted to remain citizens of the UK.

3. We assert that the people of Scotland are sovereign.

The principled stance would therefore be that we stand up for our rights as a sovereign people. Our citizenship of both the UK and the EU cannot be removed without our consent. This will be supporting the rights of all the people of Scotland not just those supporting independence. A motion to this effect should be brought before the Scottish parliament. The unionist parties would therefore be forced to come to a decision. Either they support the motion or explicitly reject the idea of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. This will bring the idea of sovereignty into sharp focus, something that should have been more discussed during the Independence referendum campaign.

We then await developments. If the UK government proceeds with withdrawing from the EU it will be they who will be removing our rights as citizens of the EU. The unionists will probably go along with this. However there will be a large number of people, the people who are not committed to the Union, but who voted No in 2014, who will be forced to make a decision. There will be no "status quo" option. Of course, we don't know what their reaction will be. We might hope that there will be a demand from them for another Independence referendum. The committed unionist, on the other hand, will be forced to deny our sovereignty explicitly. They will find it difficult to remain "proud Scots but".

We have no way of knowing how this scenario will play out but it will be the principled position to take.

Fighting The System

Posted on January 28th, 2016

By Lynne

Back in September of 2015, I wrote about how my daughter, who suffers from dwarfism, had lost her Disability Living Allowance when she turned 16 and had been refused any help under the Personal Independence Payment, usually known as PIP. You can read the original article at:

I was devastated by this news, not to mention the severe financial impact it had on me and my family. Not only did we lose the Motability car we needed to help my daughter get around, I also had my Carer’s Allowance stopped because the DWP had decided my daughter was not disabled and so did not require any care.

Fortunately for me, there are some caring people who were prepared to help me take on the DWP. My MP, Hannah Bardell, quickly got on the case and she and her assistant, marcus Woods, contacted the DWP several times. Marcus also advised me that my daughter should have been classed as disabled under the Equality Act 2010 and should have been entitled to some transitional arrangements while moving from DLA to PIP. Needless to say, the DWP did nothing about this. As you might expect, they were also very uncooperative and their responses to my MP always avoided answering the main questions they were asked.

As for the actual decision, the DWP awarded my daughter 6 points for Care Needs and 4 points for Mobility, neither of which was enough to give her any financial support. When they were challenged on this, they claimed that the ATOS nurse had carried out a musculoskeletal examination of my daughter but this never happened. The ATOS nurse merely asked questions and observed my daughter’s movements. Her alleged examination consisted of asking my daughter to stand up in the living room and take two steps. Nevertheless, there were some alarming discrepancies between what the ATOS nurse reported from her very limited observations and what the DWP Decision Maker wrote. For example, the Decision Maker told my daughter:

"The musculoskeletal examination carried out and also the observations made at your consultation did not indicate that you have any significant impairment of your upper or lower limbs, spinal flexion, manual dexterity or grip."

However what the nurse actually reported to the DWP was:

"She requires the use of aids to manage this activity reliably which is consistent with symptoms of her achodroplaysia. informal observations showed she struggled to get on and off the couch and that her limbs were visibly shorter and MSO showed movements were slow."

She continued:

"Functional history shows she uses a stool and her parents help her into shower and lay out what she needs. Medical history shows she is shorter than 4 Foot and had visibly shorter limbs and MSO showed her shoulder abduction was reduced and movements were slow."

As an aside, it was interesting that the so-called experts managed to spell achondroplasia incorrectly throughout their reports.

The DWP’s decision seemed utterly bizarre since anyone who is not blind can see that my daughter’s arms are only half the length of fully grown arms, as the ATOS nurse confirmed in writing. However, this complete disregard for the medical facts did help us prove the deficiency of the DWP’s decision when we went to the Appeal hearing.

More on the Appeal later. When it came to the actual process, my local Council’s Advice Shop were brilliant in helping us complete the appeal form and also provided someone to help represent us at the hearing.

However, I still needed to do a lot of work myself. I obtained a written report from our GP, detailing my daughter’s problems, along with a Diagnosis Sheet from her back specialist and an Advice & Information note from the Restricted Growth Association which detailed all the issues people suffering from dwarfism can experience.

The Appeal was heard on Tuesday 12th January and it was quite an ordeal. Without me being there and without the Support Worker from the Advice Shop, it would have been terrifying for my daughter as she faced questions from a panel of three men, one of whom was a doctor. He fired lots of questions at her in a manner she found quite intimidating. Maybe he was just trying to do a thorough job of understanding all the issues she faces but she was very nervous under his questioning. It was particularly embarrassing and degrading for a sixteen year old disabled girl to have to explain to three middle-aged men about the problems she has when taking a bath or shower or when going to the toilet. It’s not an experience many adults would like to face and I know my daughter would never have coped if we had not been there to support her.

Fortunately, my daughter’s disability is so obvious and we had produced so much medical evidence and had demonstrated the complete inadequacy of the assessment that the panel overturned the initial decision. Instead of being awarded 6 points on the PIP Care component, she was awarded 14 points, enough to qualify for the Higher Rate. She was also awarded 8 points for Mobility, giving her the Standard Rate which wasn’t what we’d hoped for but is an awful lot better than the 4 points and no Benefit awarded initially.

So things have, after more than three very stressful months, worked out pretty well. I’ll even be able to claim my Carer’s Allowance again which will be a great help. I am so grateful to everyone who helped us through this pretty dreadful experience but that’s the main thing I’d like people to take from this story; that it is a dreadful experience. People with real physical disabilities are being penalised by faceless bureaucrats who make decisions that are totally at odds with the medical evidence. We’ve been very fortunate because there are plenty of other people who are being refused any assistance from the DWP despite having very real problems.

The Appeal process itself is a real ordeal. You need to fight every step of the way and gather together as much medical evidence as you can. It’s hard, hard work and, without the support of people like my MP and her assistant, our GP and especially the Council’s Advice Shop, we would never have managed to get this far. And that’s the real issue here. What used to be regarded as normal, compassionate care for the least able in our society has become a grudging benefit that needs to be fought for. Is that really the sort of society we want?

A Simple Challenge

Posted on January 25th, 2016

By Blind Pew

We all know that the Tories are on a self-appointed mission to make life as unbearable as possible for the most vulnerable in our society but their latest idea is outrageous and has obviously been thought up by someone with no conception of what it means to be disabled. What they have suggested is that people who are visually impaired should have the Care Component of Personal Independence Payment reduced or cut altogether if those people have gadgets and equipment which help them adapt to daily living.

Now, before you start muttering to yourself that this might be a good idea, let’s put things into perspective. I am completely blind and I use quite a few gadgets to help me cope with my sight loss. For example, I have a talking watch, liquid level indicators to tell me when I have reached the top of the cup when pouring liquid, a white stick to avoid bumping into things and, of course, special software on my PC which talks to me and lets me know what I am typing. There are plenty of other gadgets available depending on an individual’s specific needs, including things like talking microwave ovens, one of the pieces of equipment the Tories have cited as meaning that a blind person needs less financial assistance.

but here’s the rub. The PC software I use cost me over £1,000. I believe the price has come down a bit over the past few years but, even excluding VAT, which blind people do not need to pay on such goods, the current version still costs around £860. A talking microwave costs around £225, about seven times the cost of the cheapest standard microwave oven. The obvious question, therefore, is how a blind person is supposed to be able to afford these items if their PIP Benefit is to be reduced.

However, it is not only about the money. As usual, the Tories have based their decision on a complete failure to appreciate the issues a blind person faces. There is plenty of research evidence that confirms the sense people most fear losing is their eyesight, and there is a good reason for that. A great many visually impaired people manage to do quite extraordinary things but the problem with citing blind people who climb mountains or go skydiving or pursue careers in professional fields is that these people are the exception, not the rule. The majority of blind or visually impaired people are elderly, often with other infirmities in conjunction with their sight loss and a great many of them live alone, with little income except a pension and their PIP. They need all the assistance they can get and, even with a plethora of gadgets, life isn’t exactly easy.

To give just one example, even if you have a talking microwave, how do you know what it is you are putting in it? How can you read the cooking instructions on the packet? How do you get the contents out of the packaging and onto a plate without spilling it? Some people might find ways to do these things but those people will be in a minority, not the majority.

The other thing to bear in mind is that even when you buy a gadget that will talk to you, you almost always need a sighted person to set it up for you. Only a very few come ready to use.

I could go on listing all sorts of things like that but I’ll settle for issuing a challenge to Iain Duncan Smith and any of his DWP associates. I’d like them to be presented with the task of making a cheese and tomato sandwich. I’ll allow them to have someone place in front of them a loaf of sliced bread, a tub of margarine or butter, a block of cheese, a tomato and a couple of knives of varying sharpness. Then I’d like them to wear a blindfold and make the sandwich without any assistance. There are, as you can see, no special gadgets or pieces of equipment involved but I’m willing to bet they will struggle to cope with this simplest of tasks. If you don’t believe me, try it for yourself. Then imagine what it must be like to prepare and cook an entire meal for yourself if you can’t see.

The other disturbing aspect about the plan to curb payments if specialist equipment is available is that it could easily be applied to other disabilities. Are the Tories going to suggest that a person who is confined to a wheelchair should have their Mobility Component reduced or removed on the grounds that they are capable of getting around by themselves? That’s obviously preposterous but it’s the same principle. I hope I haven’t given the Tories an idea there but hopefully that comparison shows just how dreadful this latest plan is.

The most worrying thing is that, while this proposal is only in a consultation phase just now, we all know that the Tories never listen to any objections and it will almost certainly be pushed through over any arguments. Still, I would encourage any visually impaired person to contact their MP and make them aware of why this proposal should be strongly resisted. To adapt an old cliché, this sort of thing is the thin edge of what could turn out to be a very large wedge.

And if anyone reading this does take up the blind sandwich-making challenge, I’d be interested to know how they get on.

That Second Vote

Posted on January 15th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

There is a move by some in the media, and especially BBC Scotland, to mislead people over the voting system for the Holyrood elections. Each voter will have two votes and there is a tendency by some reporters to refer to a “Second Vote", giving the impression, although they obviously never actually say so, that this vote is for your second preference after you have cast your main vote.

This is absolutely wrong. Each voter will be able to vote for a Constituency MSP, in exactly the same way as they would vote for a Westminster MP. The other vote is for a Regional List, in which each voter votes for the Party of his or her choice, with MSPs being elected from a list nominated by each Party. The actual method of calculation of how many Regional MSPs are elected from each Party is designed to ensure a more proportional Parliament and prevent any one party gaining an absolute majority. You can see a full description of how it works at:

There is much debate on social media about tactical voting and whether pro-Indie supporters would be wasting their Regional vote by voting for the SNP since that Party is expected to do extremely well in the Constituency votes. The important thing to remember, though, is that there is absolutely nothing to stop you voting for the same Party with both votes and, indeed, it seems a bizarre suggestion to vote for some alternative Party with your Regional List vote unless you genuinely do want to give a smaller Party like the greens some representation.

Be very careful about how you listen to news reports. Many reporters will try to give you the impression that you cannot vote for the same Party with both votes. This is completely wrong. The Scottish Parliament is made up of Constituency and Regional List MSPs and you are entitled to vote for the representatives you want from both categories. Do not listen to anyone who tries to tell you anything different and please do spread the word to anyone who is confused about the system.

On the same theme, some people have reservations about the Regional List system since it means that some MSPs are elected without their personal views being scrutinised by the electorate. In other words, if you vote for the SNP in a Regional List vote, you have no idea how many MSPs that Party will gain from the List, nor will you have much opportunity to speak to them beforehand in order to find out whether you believe they would be a good representative for your Region.

This is a perfectly valid argument but any system of proportional representation is going to present this sort of issue and, in practice, it probably doesn’t make much difference to the bulk of the electorate. The Tories, to give them credit, have realised this in their latest election pamphlet which urges voters to use their Regional List vote to elect Ruth Davidson. This is, on the face of it, an odd statement since Ruth Davidson, unwilling to put herself up for election as a Constituency MSP because she knows she’d probably lose, is standing on the Regional List for Edinburgh & The Lothians, so people outside of that region cannot vote for her. But the Tories have understood the essential thing. Most voters vote for a Party leader, not for an individual representative. They vote for a Party and expect the local representative to adhere to the policies set out by the Party leader. This is not true for every voter, of course, because some people do vote for an individual representative rather than the Party that person stands for but, by and large, voters choose a Party to elect. The fact that there is a Constituency vote in the Holyrood elections allows voters the option of choosing a personal representative as well as voting for a Party on the regional List. To borrow a much hated phrase amongst Yessers, it’s the best of both worlds. Well, maybe not the best but it’s a decent enough compromise.

But, once again, don’t forget that you can vote for the same Party twice. You have two votes and both of them count; it is not a First and Second preference, so don’t be fooled by the subtle misrepresentation in the media.

Cause & Effect

Posted on January 13th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

So growth in the economy has slowed and the Scottish media were quick to put the blame on the low oil price.

Now, I’m an amateur when it comes to economics, but something didn’t quite ring true about this.

Economies are complex things and even expert economists disagree about how they operate, so pinning the blame for poor growth on the oil price seemed a bit simplistic. Nobody can deny, of course, that the slump in oil prices has had a profound effect on the oil and gas industry, particularly in areas like North East Scotland where the extraction costs of oil now exceed the price per barrel that can be obtained. The effect on the people involved has been pretty horrendous, with BP announcing just yesterday that they are making another six hundred people redundant. That’s on top of the thousands of jobs already shed in Scotland alone, never mind in the rest of the world.

But does this downturn explain the poor UK growth figures? I would have thought that every other sector of the economy would see some sort of uplift from the low oil price, particularly when you consider the howls of anguish from businesses when oil first hit $100 per barrel because this would increase their costs.

The low oil price should be having other effects. We have seen lower petrol prices at the pumps and lower costs of fuel must surely be helping pretty much any business you can think of which requires transportation to deliver its goods and services. What I’m getting at is that businesses are always complaining that high costs hamper their efforts to grow but any business person who complains that his or her business cannot grow because their costs are too low really shouldn’t be in business at all.

But this knock on effect does not appear to be happening. If costs are low for transport, for delivery of goods, for the public who can use their cars to get about, why is growth slowing? Is the oil and gas sector really so huge that the lack of spending by oil companies outweighs all other sectors of the economy?

Not being an expert, I went onto Twitter and asked a few economists whether it was right to blame the low oil price for the poor growth figures in the UK economy. Only one, Ann Pettifor, responded and her comment was, “Good question." A few other people, whose expertise and experience couldn’t be confirmed, chipped in with supply and demand comments suggesting that the collapse in US oil company capital spending is indeed to blame although I still struggle with the inference that the US oil sector outweighs all other sectors. One or two people agreed with me that, although there is a correlation between oil prices and the economy as a whole, this does not necessarily equate to cause and effect.

Ann Pettifor then posted a link to an article she wrote in August last year which you can read at:

In essence, what she is saying is that the real cause of economic gloom at the moment is the high public and personal debt, wage depression and austerity. In other words, the very economic Road to Recovery that the Tories are pushing us down is what is causing the problem.

Ann Pettifor is not the only economist saying this sort of thing but, so far, the establishment have a hold on the narrative which is being played to the public and the Scottish media were quick to follow the official line by blaming the oil price. One can only presume that this was little more than an attempt to convince the Scottish public that an independent Scotland could not possibly cope financially with oil prices being low because, of course, there is no other sector in our economy which creates jobs or wealth. This is little more than propaganda and we really need to counter it. Yes, the oil and gas sector is important and a large part of our economy but it is certainly not the only one, no matter what the Scottish media try to tell us.

Get Your Wellies ON

Posted on January 11th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

The Daily Telegraph has confirmed what most of us already knew; that the mainstream media will say pretty much anything to smear the SNP because of the threat it presents to the established order. Yes, it’s Welliegate, a shocking tale of Scotland’s First Minister daring to wear an expensive jacket and costly wellies when visiting the victims of the floods in Aberdeenshire. How dare she, an alleged Socialist, wear expensive wellies? This, if the Telegraph is to be believed, is proof that the SNP are hypocritical in their claims to want a more socially just society.

Wow! Quite apart from the pathetic inanity of this sort of claim, we should be grateful to the Daily Telegraph for showing us just how low the Establishment is prepared to go in order to smear its opponents. Of course, the Telegraph failed to notice the real issues of the story, which were that Nicola Sturgeon actually met flood victims and announced a fund to pay each of them three times the amount the UK Government is paying victims of floods in England and Wales. Not that £1,500 can possibly replace the household items and personal effects lost in the floods but it does at least show a willingness to help. Hopefully the Scottish Government will also allocate more funds to flood defences to prevent a reoccurrence of this calamity.

But the Telegraph chose, instead, to make snide remarks about the First Minister’s choice of wellies. Needless to say, this has backfired on social media where several people have pointed out that the prices quoted in the Telegraphs’ article are those from an expensive London store and not necessarily applicable in Scotland or in cheaper alternative outlets. Not that the price really matters because what the Telegraph was trying to do was portray Nicola Sturgeon as a closet posh toff who is out of touch with the ordinary people of Scotland and who is quite prepared to take advantage of her salary to enjoy luxury items which are out of the reach of many people. It is a stunningly stupid argument, born of the belief that anyone with socialist values thinks everyone in the country should be poor. This is simply a misrepresentation of the issue. Nicola Sturgeon is well paid for doing a difficult and challenging job. Why should she not spend her money as she sees fit? As for her socialist values, the view of the likes of the Daily Telegraph and its Tory/UKIP readers is based on their own values of greed and selfishness. They cannot comprehend that it is perfectly possible to earn a lot of money and still be concerned that the majority of people in the country are not earning enough. They believe that a Socialist wants to take everything away from the wealthy and redistribute it to create a level playing field. But that is not what the poorer people in society want. It’s not an absolute levelling they are crying out for, just a shifting of the balance so that they have more than they have just now and that the wealthy lose a little of their income in order to help society as a whole. It is not a Communist revolution we want, just a fairer society where everyone in the country could afford to buy a pair of expensive wellies if they wanted to.

This is not the first time the media has attempted to smear Nicola Sturgeon in this way. There were howls of outrage when her expensive coffee maker was seen in a TV documentary, as if this, too, were proof of her high living. The truth is, though, that most of the people of Scotland couldn’t care less what sort of coffee maker or wellies she buys. They are more concerned with whether she is doing a good job as First Minister and, if the polls of leader approval ratings are to be believed, she is doing a better job than the leaders of any other UK political Party.

Image is important, of course, but the public are not as daft as the media likes to think. When David Cameron sent one of his lackeys out to buy a cheap pair of wellies for him because he didn’t want to appear too posh when filmed visiting flood areas in England, it is unlikely that anyone watching was fooled into thinking Cameron is not a millionaire. But Nicola Sturgeon’s image is about far more than wellies and most Scots know this.

Still, let’s hope the media continue to come up with this type of personal attack because it shows they know they have lost the real argument. The UK is a failing state, a plutocracy rather than a democracy, where the media sees its role as to preserve the rule of the wealthy. The subliminal message of the Telegraph’s article is that ordinary people should not aspire to wear expensive wellies because these are the preserve of the upper classes. That’s not the sort of country most ordinary people want to live in. We want a country where we can all wear whatever wellies we like. And, let’s face it, the way the climate is changing, we’ll all need expensive wellies soon.

Storm In A Teacake

Posted on January 5th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

People and nations boycott goods and services for a variety of reasons. At a personal level, it is often due to a bad customer service experience or dissatisfaction with the product concerned but it can also result from a loss of faith in the provider of the goods or services as witnessed by the fall in sales of Volkswagen cars following the emissions scandal. However, boycotts can also be based on political differences, as when people who lived through the Second World War refused to purchase Japanese goods as a matter of principle, or when South African goods were boycotted during the apartheid era, or the current boycotting of Israeli goods by some people because of that country’s treatment of the Palestinians. Boycotting is a perfectly legitimate stance to adopt but, as so often in post-IndieRef Scotland, a mooted boycott of Tunnock’s Teacakes is causing a furore on social media, with Yessers insisting they won’t purchase any more of these chocolate-covered marshmallow biscuits and Yoons deriding Yessers for being petty and childish.

But let’s take a look at what is going on here. Tunnock’s Teacakes have been part of Scottish culture for generations and were even featured as such in the opening ceremony to the Commonwealth Games last year. As with most businesses, though, Tunnock’s are looking to increase their sales and, from a purely commercial perspective, their decision to market the teacakes as a great British Teacake is understandable even if it does risk damaging their sales in Scotland and perhaps even in the Republic of Ireland where branding anything as British is as good as ensuring its failure.

The thing is, though, that it is only the sales aimed at England and Wales which are being re-branded. The packaging in Scotland will remain as it has always been and this raises a question as to what all the fuss is about. Using slightly different branding in different countries is hardly exceptional business practice, so Tunnock’s perhaps have a point.

The re-branding itself seems to consist of removing the Lion Rampant from the packaging and advertising the Teacakes as British which, of course, they are.

But there are a couple of things to consider here. Perhaps Tunnock’s have carried out some detailed market research which suggests that, all anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, the majority of English consumers equate the Lion Rampant with Scotland and would therefore be unlikely to purchase the teacakes since they are not branded as British. This seems unlikely on two counts because the Lion Rampant on the Tunnock’s boxes was hardly the main feature of the packaging and the connection to Scotland is probably lost on a great many people outside Scotland. But, assuming people in England did claim to recognise it and therefore stated they would be less likely to purchase the teacakes, that in itself suggests a boycott of sorts based on racial discrimination which is, if social media comments are to be taken at face value, deemed perfectly acceptable while the statements by Scots who do not wish to associate themselves with the British State that they will no longer buy Tunnock’s teacakes are deemed misguided and childish.

The larger question, though, is why Tunnock’s believe that British branding is required when other Scottish foodstuffs such as beef, salmon and whisky sell perfectly well in England.

And this is where we arrive at the nub of the problem. It has far less to do with the decision to re-brand the product south of the Border than it has to do with the way the announcement has been handled. Tunnock’s could, for example, have said, “We are a Scottish Company and will remain so. Our product in Scotland is not being changed in any way but we are seeking to increase our sales in other parts of the UK and market research suggests that the best way to do this is to brand the product slightly differently."

Instead, what they have said, is, “We are British. We can’t advertise the teacakes as Scottish because that is promoting Scotland". Indeed, there does not seem to have been any market research undertaken, simply a marketing decision based on a pro-British stance among the Company’s Directors who, it should not be forghotten, advocated a No vote in the IndieRef. In other words, they have made no secret of the fact that they believe the Scottish brand is tainted in the rest of the UK and have decided to proclaim themselves part of the Union. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to do this but they must have known that proclaiming this decision in such a public way would not go down well with the many Scots who want nothing to do with the British State. This, it seems, does not concern them and, on commercial grounds they may be correct since England provides by far the largest market in the UK and an increase in sales may well outweigh any potential slump in Scottish sales.

So, good luck to Tunnock’s in their commercial enterprise because they employ around 500 people and nobody wants to see yet more jobs lost but the Unionists complaining about the calls for a boycott really ought to get their logic circuits engaged. As several people have pointed out, why is it deemed acceptable for organisation such as Royal Bank of Scotland and standard Life to threaten to boycott Scotland if we had voted Yes but it is bigotry for Yessers to boycott the products of a company with whose political stance they fundamentally disagree? Doesn’t that same rule mean that Unionists who refuse to buy The National newspaper are petty and childish for boycotting a pro-Indie publication? Of course it doesn’t. It’s about choice and letting a Company know when you are not satisfied with the way they are going about their business.

As for me, I love Tunnock’s teacakes but I won’t be eating any more because I’m back on a diet. And if I do fancy a teacake, other brands are available.

Cleaning Up

Posted on January 4th, 2016

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Lots of people like to clean their house at New Year. Sometimes they refer to it as Spring Cleaning, even though we’re in the middle of winter but that’s just a turn of phrase which everybody understands.

What some of us are struggling to understand is the latest call for us to get out and voluntarily tidy up the UK in time for the Queen’s 90th birthday.

What? Doesn’t the old dear have enough spare cash to pay for an army of people to do this if she’s so concerned about the untidiness of her realm?

More importantly, doesn’t she, or the people behind the campaign, realise that litter and graffiti are not the real issue, but are simply symptoms of the problem? The real issue is poverty.

A recent UNICEF report states that 1 in 4 children in the UK is now living in relative poverty. The Tory Government disagrees because it has changed the way it measures poverty but that’s the Tories for you. According to UNICEF, the UK now has a worse child poverty rate then North Korea.

Yes, that’s right. If you look at a militaristic, aggressive country which is ruled by a powerful elite and where the citizens are compelled to adulate the Head of State unquestioningly, you see that its child poverty record is worse than North Korea. (It’s hard to tell the difference between the two countries sometimes, isn’t it?)

I’m not advocating going out and tipping your rubbish into the street just to spite the Clean For The Queen project but I would rather our efforts went into helping people in real need.

Unfortunately, I expect we’ll be bombarded by news reports about the new project while the plight of children in poverty will be largely ignored by the media. That’s how the UK operates and, lie the poverty rates in what is alleged to be the fifth wealthiest country in the world, it is an absolute disgrace.

A Basic Error

Posted on December 30th, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Economist David Blanchflower posed the following question during an online discussion on social media:

“If inflation falls from 3% to 2%, have prices gone up, gone down, or remained the same?"

Incredibly, it seems that the majority of people answered that this meant prices had gone down, despite the word, “inflation" meaning that prices are going up. The fact that the rate of increase has slowed does not alter this fundamental point.

But if that is the level of understanding among the general public, it’s no wonder politicians get away with the nonsense they often spout.

Why We Dance

Posted on December 27th, 2015

By Tcswim

O what a nonsense that we dinnae dance
Ideas leap & whirl in this wee country
In reels of swirling thoughts and dreams
And in the progress of the steps it seems
That in our dance we laugh, for in that glance
We choreograph a future.
Freedom, dignity and hope: for this we dance.

Dance Away

Posted on December 23rd, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Just when you thought the #SNPBad idiocy couldn’t get any more stupid, the Scottish Conservatives have come out with an absolute Christmas cracker.

A survey of people’s exercise habits has revealed that the number of people who actively participate in dancing as a social and exercise activity has halved since the SNP came to power. The Tories, needless to say, have claimed this is due to the SNP.

What? No reflection that it might be down to people having less money to spend and cutting back on activities that cost a bit of money? No thoughts that the number of places where such activities can take place has reduced or that those places which remain are charging higher fees for renting the space? No consideration that the people who used to participate in dancing might have had changes in family life in the past eight years? Perhaps they have started their own families and have young children, which makes getting out as a couple more difficult, and perhaps the younger generation are participating in other activities?

No, none of those thoughts. I have no idea what lies behind the fall in the number of people dancing because the Tories have made no attempt to explain the fall, they have simply leaped to the conclusion that the SNP must be to blame because of a correlation between the time the SNP have been in Government and the interval between the chosen surveys.

Still, it’s given us a good laugh at Christmas, so thanks to the Tories for that. And there is good news for them because, although dancing as an activity is down, the number of #SNPBad stories is escalating day by day.

Come to think of it, perhaps that’s why fewer people are out dancing. They’re too busy killing themselves laughing at the media’s attempts to denigrate the most popular Government Scotland has ever had.

There Goes The Sun

Posted on December 21st, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Among the many announcements shovelled out by the UK Government last week was one that reduced the Feed In Tariff (FIT) paid to owners of solar panel installations. The FIT is to be slashed to only a third of the current amount although, to be fair, that is rather better than the Tories’ first thoughts on the matter which was to cut it by nearly 90%.

What is FIT and why does it matter? And why are the Tories cutting it?

The Feed In Tariff is a Government scheme designed to reimburse owners of solar panels for the extra energy they feed back in to the National Grid. It’s a fairly basic formula to give some incentive and reward on what is actually quite a complex matter. The thing with solar panels is that you never know when the sun is going to shine. If you are a domestic user, you may be in and be running a lot of electrical equipment and so using up al the power your panels are generating. However, if you happen to be out or not running much more than your fridge, that excess power is fed back to the Grid. FIT is designed to recompense you for that.

It is one of the selling features used by Solar Panel companies when trying to gain business from domestic users. The trouble is, it has been so successful that the scheme is now over budget and the Tories have decided to cut back quite drastically. It should be noted, however, that this will only affect new users, not those already tied in to agreed FIT payments. Still, the announcement has caused howls of outrage from the Solar industry, with claims of resulting job losses.

The Tories justify their decision on the basis that the scheme actually benefits middle class homeowners who can afford the cost of installing solar panels which can be in excess of £10,000 depending on how many panels you fit. This is perfectly true for reasons I will come to shortly but it does seem odd that the Tories, who derive most of their voting support from well off middle class voters should shut down a scheme which helps those people. Perhaps the Tories have developed a social conscience? OK, probably not, although their assertion is correct.

The problem with installing solar panels is the up front cost. Some companies promote a loan scheme where the loan repayments are more or less met by the net saving in electricity bills and the receipt of FIT payments. The income is obviously uneven, with FIT producing more in the summer and less in winter, with savings on electricity bills also unpredictable because of the uncertainty over how often the sun will actually shine. However, by and large, the companies installing solar panels get their calculations more or less right and homeowners are not out of pocket. The problem with this sort of scheme, though, is that the loans are taken out over an extended period, perhaps as long as 15 years, so the owners, while not being out of pocket, are not likely to see much return for as long as the loan is running. This means that, by and large, people on lower incomes have less incentive to install solar panels since, in purely financial terms, they are not going to see any real return for 15 years. Anyone who can afford to pay for the installation costs from their savings can, however, see an immediate benefit which is significantly greater than leaving funds in a savings account which currently pays a very low rate of interest. This is why the scheme has benefited middle class homeowners to a greater extent than envisaged.

Of course, finances are not the only issue. Being Green counts for a lot these days and some people look to solar as a way of doing their bit for the environment. It should also be remembered that the attractiveness of the scheme keeps solar companies in business and creates and sustains jobs. Some of those jobs will certainly be at risk if demand for solar panels reduces as a result of the cut to FIT. What the Tories don’t seem to have appreciated is that reducing FIT means that less well off homeowners are now even less likely to be able to afford to install solar panels, thus exacerbating the problem they cite as being one reason for cutting the FIT.

As for the claim that the scheme is over budget, this is a reasonable argument but it confirms that the decision is ideological because, as I’ve mentioned many times before, every Government chooses which industries and sectors to subsidise and encourage. The Tories have decided to cut funding for renewable energies and concentrate on nuclear. This is fair enough given the electoral mandate they received at the General Election but one wonders how many voters would prefer to have a nuclear reactor in their neighbourhood rather than solar panels on their roof. The decision to focus on nuclear is, though, a strange one when you consider the Tories’ pledge to be the Greenest Government ever. OK, nuclear power can generate a lot of electricity while solar panels on a roof can’t even provide all the power a single house needs but if more houses were equipped with solar panels, the demand for power from the Grid would be significantly reduced. It should also be noted that some industry commentators have claimed that the subsidy paid to the Chinese operators of the new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point is so huge that a single month’s payment will be greater than the subsidies paid to the entire solar industry in a year. This rather suggests that the cost of FIT is not the overriding concern and that the decision is driven by the Tories’ illogical detestation of renewable energy sources.

When a country like Denmark can produce over 100% of its electricity needs from renewable sources, it surely cannot be impossible for the UK in general and particularly Scotland, to match this. Scotland’s ability to produce wind, wave and solar power is unrivalled in Europe and the need for alternative sources of energy is vital considering the Tories’ policy of closing down Scottish coal and gas generating stations by penalising them with fines for connecting to the Grid. Going for nuclear when alternative sources are available is a bewildering stance but the slashing of FIT confirms that the Tories are hell bent on going nuclear at the expense of renewables. Let’s hope it doesn’t result in the lights going out.

One House Or Two?

Posted on December 15th, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Lord George Foulkes was at it again recently, calling for the creation of a second chamber of legislature within Scotland in order to prevent the SNP creating laws without effective scrutiny and challenge.

Now, there are plenty of countries in the world who have two chambers within their system of government, the UK being one of them. This is known as a bicameral system. I was recently unfortunate enough to be chatting to some No voters who insisted Foulkes was correct and that every Parliament must have a second chamber which can scrutinise and challenge laws which might have been rushed through a lower chamber and passed by virtue of a Parliamentary majority. I was assured that the House of Lords provides a good example of how this can work, simply on the basis that they challenged the recent Tax Credit plans of the Tory Government and are also unhappy with the Scotland Bill’s fiscal provisions.

OK, this is a fair point and I’m not necessarily advocating that Scotland must stick with a unicameral system (that’s one legislative chamber, i.e. the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood). However, I did a bit of checking and discovered a list of countries which seem to manage perfectly well with only one legislative chamber. Admittedly, there are a few basket cases on the list, such as North Korea and Greece, and there are lots of smaller countries where you can understand that the size of the nation does not necessarily warrant the expense of a second chamber. There are also some effective dictatorships such as Egypt and Syria, along with a smattering of former Communist countries.

But, and here’s the interesting thing, there are also perfectly normal small to medium-sized countries such as New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Slovakia and Sweden. And there’s China, the largest country in the world by population although its single-Party system makes a second chamber redundant.

You can check the list at:

It is also worth noting that many countries with federal systems of government, such as the USA, Switzerland and Germany, have unicameral State legislatures within their federated components. Bearing in mind that many of these federal units have populations larger than Scotland, this doesn’t appear to be a problem in those countries either.

It must also be remembered that a bicameral system is no guarantee that bad laws will not be passed. In the UK, for example, the Government can usually force things through eventually and, in some cases, immediately. The recent House of Commons debate on bombing in Syria resulted in RAF jets dropping bombs within a few hours of the vote, with the House of Lords conspicuously not involved in scrutinising the decision.

And, while the list of countries with unicameral legislatures contains some places that can be reasonably regarded as politically unstable, the list of bicameral states has its fair share as well, including places like Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico, Myanmar and Pakistan.

There is an argument that a unicameral system works best when no single party has an overall majority. If coalition or minority Government is the order of the day, opposition Parties can usually ensure that the Government is unable to push laws through. In Scotland, of course, the electoral system was designed to prevent any one Party gaining such an advantage. The problem now is that the opposition Parties have shown themselves to be so inept or out of step with the wishes of a vast section of the electorate that the SNP have been able to gain the unexpected position of majority Government.

I’m not saying that there isn’t necessarily a need for discussion on whether a second chamber is required. I don’t think it is really necessary under the current devolved administration but the situation might be different in an independent Scotland. Then again, it might still not be necessary and a great deal of thought would need to go into the composition of such a second chamber and how its members should be elected. What I am saying is that we should not rush to accept the Unionist view that a second chamber is essential because, as other countries have demonstrated, that is simply not true.

Abridged Version

Posted on December 14th, 2015

By David Hooks

This article first appeared on the website of Politics Scotland ( and is reproduced here by kind permission of the author.

There have already been cries that the SNP should have done more, usually from the same people who argued they shouldn’t have built a new bridge and that it was a vanity project. There were claims that the transfer of the bridge maintenance contract to a private company had led to the chief engineer leaving the loss of years of knowledge. But the crux of the argument is that the SNP removing tolls has reduced the money available for maintenance and there were indeed plans to improve the structural integrity of the trusses that were supposedly deferred due to budget constraints. The work to replace the trusses was to be difficult, expensive, originally estimated at £10M but likely to be higher, and cause significant disruption to bridge users. It was decided to try a reinforcing technique with a trial due to finish this year with a decision taken after the transfer of the authority if the trial was unsuccessful.

The Forth Estuary Transport Agency did say in 2014 that the deferral did increase the risk of the long term structural integrity of the bridge, but there didn’t seem to be any urgent warning of “the bridge will collapse in 12 months if you don’t act now". But reality is that the need for work on these trusses has been known about for 6 years. The SNP may argue that the capital budget was cut 25% from Westminster, but the cut to capital grant for the FETA was 65%.

The defect was found during routine inspections, and Mark Arndt, from the maintenance contractor Amey, explained that these types of sheer fractures are difficult to predict and happen very quickly. He noted that significant over-stressing over the lifespan of the bridge had meant several parts of the main supporting structures were carrying far more load under certain circumstances than they were designed for.

But there have been accusations that an increased number of abnormal loads have been allowed across the bridge in the past 12 months and there are many instances of drivers using the bridge in adverse conditions. Some trucks have overturned while traversing in high winds putting increased shock and pressure on the bridge’s structures. An acoustic monitoring system was installed in 2006 and from then to April 93 cable breaks had been identified, but 24 of those had occurred in the previous three months.

But it’s worth taking a look briefly at the history of the bridge. It was first built with an estimate of a maximum of 60,000 vehicles a day, but that number is regularly exceeded, and the maximum weight of vehicles on British roads has doubled to 44 tonnes. At the time of building it was hugely ambitious and was briefly the largest bridge of its kind outside of the United States. It was opened in 1964, yet it was only in 2004, 40 years later, that the first full scale investigation of the cables was performed. During that maiden inspection, prompted by the discovery of corrosion in the Severn bridge, it was discovered that the cables had the corrosion levels of a bridge 20 years older than it really was. A major and expensive, but brilliant, engineering effort was undertaken to dry out the cables. This involved wrapping them in neoprene and pumping in dehumidified air with the aim of stopping the corrosion.

Other work has been done on the bridge over the decades, the towers were strengthened in the 1990’s to cope with increased traffic, and structures were erected to protect them from collisions from ships. This wasn’t dealt with in the original design and there must be increasing questions about the original design and materials used given the number of works that have been carried out.

The size of the crack and the apparent shifting of the supporting structure seems to suggest a major problem that will require months of work to safely repair and will likely lead to expensive inspection and repair work on the other similar sections of the bridge. Given that the new bridge was due to open at the end of next year it may have been thought that the government could get away with reduced investment, but it now seems likely the trusses will have to be replaced.

There is certainly an argument to made that the value of the Forth Road bridge to the Scottish economy has been significantly undervalued and that it has suffered from a lack of investment and maintenance historically. It is also true that the SNP have put the money it to build a replacement, albeit a cut down version of the original plan which would have carried rail as well as road traffic. But there is certainly evidence that the current problems could have been avoided and questions have to be answered


Derek MacKay MSP, the Scottish Government transport minister, confirmed that the specific fault had not been previously identified as a risk. The closure of the bridge when the fault was found has, he claimed, ensured that the repair will be quicker and less costly.

Abridged Version

Posted on December 14th, 2015

By David Hooks

This article first appeared on the website of Politics Scotland ( and is reproduced here by kind permission of the author.

There have already been cries that the SNP should have done more, usually from the same people who argued they shouldn’t have built a new bridge and that it was a vanity project. There were claims that the transfer of the bridge maintenance contract to a private company had led to the chief engineer leaving the loss of years of knowledge. But the crux of the argument is that the SNP removing tolls has reduced the money available for maintenance and there were indeed plans to improve the structural integrity of the trusses that were supposedly deferred due to budget constraints. The work to replace the trusses was to be difficult, expensive, originally estimated at £10M but likely to be higher, and cause significant disruption to bridge users. It was decided to try a reinforcing technique with a trial due to finish this year with a decision taken after the transfer of the authority if the trial was unsuccessful.

The Forth Estuary Transport Agency did say in 2014 that the deferral did increase the risk of the long term structural integrity of the bridge, but there didn’t seem to be any urgent warning of “the bridge will collapse in 12 months if you don’t act now". But reality is that the need for work on these trusses has been known about for 6 years. The SNP may argue that the capital budget was cut 25% from Westminster, but the cut to capital grant for the FETA was 65%.

The defect was found during routine inspections, and Mark Arndt, from the maintenance contractor Amey, explained that these types of sheer fractures are difficult to predict and happen very quickly. He noted that significant over-stressing over the lifespan of the bridge had meant several parts of the main supporting structures were carrying far more load under certain circumstances than they were designed for.

But there have been accusations that an increased number of abnormal loads have been allowed across the bridge in the past 12 months and there are many instances of drivers using the bridge in adverse conditions. Some trucks have overturned while traversing in high winds putting increased shock and pressure on the bridge’s structures. An acoustic monitoring system was installed in 2006 and from then to April 93 cable breaks had been identified, but 24 of those had occurred in the previous three months.

But it’s worth taking a look briefly at the history of the bridge. It was first built with an estimate of a maximum of 60,000 vehicles a day, but that number is regularly exceeded, and the maximum weight of vehicles on British roads has doubled to 44 tonnes. At the time of building it was hugely ambitious and was briefly the largest bridge of its kind outside of the United States. It was opened in 1964, yet it was only in 2004, 40 years later, that the first full scale investigation of the cables was performed. During that maiden inspection, prompted by the discovery of corrosion in the Severn bridge, it was discovered that the cables had the corrosion levels of a bridge 20 years older than it really was. A major and expensive, but brilliant, engineering effort was undertaken to dry out the cables. This involved wrapping them in neoprene and pumping in dehumidified air with the aim of stopping the corrosion.

Other work has been done on the bridge over the decades, the towers were strengthened in the 1990’s to cope with increased traffic, and structures were erected to protect them from collisions from ships. This wasn’t dealt with in the original design and there must be increasing questions about the original design and materials used given the number of works that have been carried out.

The size of the crack and the apparent shifting of the supporting structure seems to suggest a major problem that will require months of work to safely repair and will likely lead to expensive inspection and repair work on the other similar sections of the bridge. Given that the new bridge was due to open at the end of next year it may have been thought that the government could get away with reduced investment, but it now seems likely the trusses will have to be replaced.

There is certainly an argument to made that the value of the Forth Road bridge to the Scottish economy has been significantly undervalued and that it has suffered from a lack of investment and maintenance historically. It is also true that the SNP have put the money it to build a replacement, albeit a cut down version of the original plan which would have carried rail as well as road traffic. But there is certainly evidence that the current problems could have been avoided and questions have to be answered


Derek MacKay MSP, the Scottish Government transport minister, confirmed that the specific fault had not been previously identified as a risk. The closure of the bridge when the fault was found has, he claimed, ensured that the repair will be quicker and less costly.

Sir Danny Boy

Posted on December 11th, 2015

For SIR Danny

With arrogant audacity
He punished us with austerity
Osborne’s jock-boy, all the while
With that insidious smile

Hurt the children of the poor
Swept them up… like so much stoor
With cuts that would make Thatcher boak
Cuts to punish working-folk

He enjoyed it awe and thus the leer
inflicted pain and thus the sneer
A ‘nathair’ …a Gaelic snake
A rented teuchter on the make

You loved it, Sir danny-boy
A paid-for Tory boy-toy
Gideon's pal & Oxon hoor
Hired to fk the sick & poor!

And thus the ever present smirk.
Oh for a potion, an asp, a dirk
And then good knight … arise
30 pieces is YOUR prize


Imagine This

Posted on December 10th, 2015

By Wee Hamish

Imagine this. You need a new car. You’ve saved up a couple of grand so you pop down to the local second-hand dealership and talk to a salesman. Let’s call him Michael.

You say, “I need a car, Michael."

He says, “No problem."

Car Michael has got one that is perfect for you. Right price, and it’s got everything you need. Five doors, four wheels and an engine.

Michael tells you it’s had one careful owner, has only done thirty thousand miles and has an MOT for nearly a whole year.

Perfect. So you buy it. And a week later, the engine blows up. When the Insurance evaluator comes out, he discovers that the car is actually a rebuilt wreck which had previously been written off. It had done over 150,000 miles and the MOT Certificate is a fake.

So you take Car Michael to court and sue him.

The judge agrees Michael lied to you but he decides you lose the case because you didn’t specifically ask Michael whether he was a liar and he didn’t specifically tell you he was an honest guy. The judge tells you that you should expect a second-hand car dealer to be a liar so it’s your own fault for believing him.

That couldn’t happen, could it? There are laws against that sort of thing, right?

Right. Unless the Carmichael in question is an MP. Because the same laws don’t apply to MPs. The law, written by MPs, says MPs are allowed to lie to you and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it unless you specifically ask them if they are the sort of person who would lie about whatever it is they are talking about.

That’s your Westminster justice for you, folks.

I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of it.


Posted on December 9th, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

There’s an interesting article written by Loki on the Bella Caledonia website which is causing some consternation amongst Yessers because of the accusations he makes regarding what he views as their idealistic and misguided viewpoint. You can read it at :

Does he have a point? That’s probably a matter of opinion but the Yes movement certainly should not be afraid of this sort of criticism. It is far better than the tribal #SNPBad attacks made in the mainstream media on a daily basis which only serve to entrench views on both sides. Loki at least has considered his reasons and made a passionate argument. It cannot be denied that some of his observations are correct although I must admit that I disagree with him in his conclusions. That, however, is probably a reflection of our differing political views.

One thing I am not clear on is precisely who Loki is attacking. He may well have encountered far more political activists than I have but I must say that I have never come across any Yes advocate who expressed the belief that an independent Scotland would be some sort of Utopia. Having said that, if we disregard his rather hyperbolic comment about Braveheart, he does make one strong argument which certainly made me reflect on my own stance and is, I suspect, one of the reasons many Yes supporters are upset by his comments. This is his accusation about us adopting the moral high ground on matters of social justice as if those who voted Yes feel they are morally superior to Unionists.

There are a few observations I’d like to make on this. The first is that everyone attempts to justify their own stance on any topic and claiming moral superiority is a common trait no matter where you stand politically. George Osborne claims the moral high ground when cutting State Benefits because he says it is in the country’s best interests. I even met a supporter of Donald Trump who attempted to justify his anti-immigrant stance on moral grounds.

The second point is that, quite frankly, it doesn’t take much to feel morally superior to the Tories, whether they are of the Blue, Red or Yellow persuasion. The attacks on the poor and disabled, the rise in food banks, etc. are well documented and opposing those sorts of policies naturally makes one feel morally right.

Finally, and this does link to my first point, I detect that Loki’s writing reveals his own feelings of moral superiority over those he is attacking. Of course, he may well be justified in this since he has been a long-time supporter of the move for Scottish independence and may well feel justified in disliking the attitudes of later converts to the cause, especially if they express their support in idealistic and unrealistic ways.

Loki is certainly right when he says that the independent Scotland we would have voted for would not be all that different to the Scotland we have now and I think this is the main reason I disagree with his stance. What many of us who take an interest in politics can often forget is that the majority of people are not so enthralled by it. They want to live their lives in peace, to earn a decent wage and to do the best for themselves and their families while knowing that they have the State to fall back on if things go wrong at any time in their lives. These people tend to occupy the political centre ground, flitting between the right and left of this position. The trouble they now face is that the political centre has shifted to the right, leaving what used to be moderate views now derided as extremist by the UK media.

This is where the SNP have been very clever. They are not a very left wing Party at al, occupying a position which is perhaps slightly to the left of the old centre. They have just made a virtue of being seen as left wing on matters of social justice because the other Parties have lurched so far to the right. But occupying this ground is what caused the surge in support for Scottish independence. Most people were not hankering for dramatic change. They wanted their lives to go on pretty much the same but with the knowledge that their Government would be chosen by them and not imposed by a Westminster election in which Scottish votes do not count. They also wanted a Government which put Scotland first rather than one which runs down its industries and economy at virtually every turn.

It may well be that this sort of ambition is not radical enough for Loki and he is perfectly entitled to that opinion. I would suggest, however, that without appealing to the middle ground, the Yes movement would have died an early death. To gain a majority of votes, it is always necessary to appeal to the desires of the majority, not simply those who want radical change.

So, yes, the Scotland we might have found ourselves living in would probably be very similar to the Scotland we live in now except that some of the more draconian measures being implemented by westminster would not be coming into effect. The Scottish Government, whichever Party was in power, would still need to deal with multi-national corporations, with foreign powers who have vested interests, with climate change and with the EU. Those things will not go away and need to be dealt with. Anyone who thought Scotland would be an independent Utopia is indeed worthy of being corrected. Equally, though, those of us who would have been quite happy with that sort of Scotland, where we got the Government we voted for, the foreign policies and social policies we wanted, are perfectly entitled to that point of view, just as Loki is entitled to his.

So, while I think Loki’s recent contribution is welcome from the point of view of encouraging debate and reflection of our values, I think it would be better for him not to alienate those who were on the same side during the IndieRef. The time for such arguments is once Scotland is independent and all political perspectives can be put forward when we are selecting our own Government. From some of Loki’s comments, it appears he thinks the chance has gone and I tend to agree with him on that although recent events have suggested a widening gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK, so an independent Scotland may not be as far off as I had originally suspected.

Where I do agree with Loki is that anyone who expresses idealistic views of a Utopian Scotland is fooling themselves and would actually harm the movement by giving ammunition to those who wish Scotland to remain part of the UK. However, if and when a second IndieRef comes along, I believe more pragmatic voices will provide the stimulus the Yes movement needs and, if idealists and pragmatists come together, we can perhaps achieve independence so that Loki and others can put forward their more radical views when the country comes to elect its first truly independent Government in over three centuries.

In Poor Health

Posted on December 6th, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

A couple of weeks ago, Kezia Dugdale attacked the Scottish Government over figures relating to cancer rates in the most deprived areas of Scotland. This led me to engage in a short Twitter conversation with several people when I posted a comment to the effect that it is poverty that is the real issue, not healthcare, and I’d like to explore that a little further.

First of all, it would be sensible to explain something about the official statistics. When we talk about people from deprived areas, what sort of deprivation do we mean? It turns out that an area is defined as poor or affluent based on several indicators relating to the people who live there. So, if an area has a majority of inhabitants who are unemployed, have high levels of poor health, poor educational outcomes, limited access to public amenities, etc, then the area is defined as poor. So, in fact, it is the people who define the level of poverty, not the area. By definition, therefore, people from poorer areas will have more health issues than people from more affluent areas no matter what any Government does to improve things, since it is the health issues that contribute to the area being defined as poor in the first place. So, for example, if everyone in the country were suddenly to experience a significant improvement in health, education and employment, some areas would still be classed as relatively poor if the people there did not quite attain the same levels as people in other areas. When you understand this, you will see that Kezia Dugdale’s specific comparisons are misleading although that is not to say that any Government should not do its best to improve the quality of living of all its citizens and poor health should be countered wherever possible. It is, however, the method of tackling this that is the real issue. Throwing money and resources at healthcare is not a long term viable solution. To find the real answer, we need to understand the problem properly.

One of the common challenges to the issue of poverty is an observation on the lifestyles of people who live in the poorer areas of our society. It can take several forms but is essentially a sneer to the effect that these people would not be so poor if they didn’t smoke / drink / take drugs / go abroad for holidays etc.

I’m sure we all know someone who falls into at least one of those categories and I’ll readily admit that I often despair of hearing people complain that they have no money to purchase food or pay their electricity bill yet still manage to smoke forty cigarettes a day or jet off to Spain for a fortnight’s holiday where they will spend most of their time so drunk they probably don’t know where they are anyway. However, I believe the big problem many of us have is that we recognise these habits as the causes of poverty when, in fact, they are far more likely to be symptoms. While there is no doubt these people would be slightly better off financially if they were able to stop partaking in unhealthy habits, poverty is a much more complex issue than that.

In his post-war development of the social care system most of us have grown up under, William Beveridge recognised that a basic level of income was a prerequisite to good health. This was an extremely progressive insight and has since been proved correct. A long term study in America which looked at children from poor Native American families has shown that children who grow up in an environment where they are financially better off are less inclined to indulge in anti-social, aggressive or intransigent behaviour. Children who grow up in poverty are less inclined to conform within an education system and are more likely to experiment with alcohol, cigarettes and drugs. Peer pressure and a lack of education combine to kick start addictive habits in childhood which prevail throughout the individual’s life and, as we all know, many of these habits lead to health issues, particularly cancer. People from poorer backgrounds are more likely to smoke and therefore more likely to suffer lung cancer but my contention is that these are caused by their poverty.

Even when an individual does their best to avoid unhealthy habits – and I must be clear that the generalisations I have mentioned are not at all intended to imply that everyone who is poor smokes, drinks to excess or takes drugs – living on a restricted income normally leads to an unhealthy diet in which fresh fruit and vegetables simply do not feature. Again, though, much of this is habit. Discount supermarkets such as Lidl and Aldi often sell fruit and vegetables at prices most people could afford and yet someone who has been brought up on a diet of takeaways and processed foods may still not take advantage of this even if they are fortunate enough to live within easy reach of such a store. Again, this must be down to poor education and lack of example from parents and peers. Part of the issue is, of course, that children and young adults have little concept of the future. They often do not care about what might happen to them in thirty or forty years because the warnings appear to have no relevance to their present situation. I am sure we all know young adults who continue to smoke even if older members of their family have died from lung cancer. They may acknowledge that they really should stop smoking but they cannot break the habit and tend to ignore what might happen to them in the future because it hasn’t happened yet. Quite how this sort of resistance can be overcome, I really don’t know. Prevention would be better than cure but, as mentioned above, children from poorer backgrounds are more likely to begin smoking because of their lack of prospects and rebellious attitude towards what they often view as authoritarian preaching.

But let’s not pick on the poor. This habit of doing things that are bad for us is a widespread human trait. There are plenty of relatively well off, well educated people who eat or drink too much even though they know it is not good for their health. Why then, should we place too much blame on people from deprived areas because they cannot break a habit that is unhealthy for them?

IN one sense, it is hardly surprising that a person growing up in a deprived area with few job prospects is likely to seek some sort of solace from alcohol or tobacco, or to take the chance of a cheap holiday abroad even if they really can’t afford it. We all like a break and it is one of the more irritating facets of human nature that the very people who complain about poor people smoking are almost always better off and insist on having a break from the drudgery of life at weekends yet seem to believe that someone with little income does not need any sort of respite from the very real stresses of poverty.

There isn’t an easy answer to this problem and certainly not a short term quick fix. However, the study which was undertaken over a twenty year period among Native Americans suggests that providing job opportunities and a decent level of income to poor families will actually improve the life chances of the children in those families even if it has little impact on the adults. It is a long term, societal change that is needed but it can only come about if the nation’s economy is boosted, jobs are created and life chances offered to those who are currently denied them by circumstances. There will always be some people who would prefer to waste their money on unhealthy habits but, in general, a slight increase in wealth for those at the lower levels of society will eventually lead to a healthier society. Sadly, this requires Government policy aimed at increasing work opportunities and ensuring that the work is paid at a level above mere subsistence. This is, of course, diametrically opposed to the policies of the UK Government which seeks to boost business profits at the expense of the working classes. This is despite the patently obvious economic example that increasing the income of millions of people who are currently on such low income that they require social security payments to supplement their wages, would result in an immediate boost to the economy as their increased spending power created more demand for goods and services. The level of that demand would far outweigh the demand created by a few thousand extremely wealthy individuals who are the current beneficiaries of Government policy. Trickle Down Economics does not work and the past four decades have provided plenty of evidence of that, although Messrs Osborne and Cameron seem oblivious to the views of the vast majority of leading economists. So, while we need a fundamental change of direction in policy, it seems unlikely we will see one within the UK for some years to come. Sadly, that will condemn another generation to lives of poverty with all the health issues that brings in its wake.

Walking Tall

Posted on December 3rd, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

From a purely military perspective, Britain’s decision to bomb Daesh inside Syria will make little difference to the current situation. Plenty of other countries have been bombing there for months and having a few Tornado jets adding to the killing won’t change things a great deal. Without significant numbers of coordinated ground troops, defeating Daesh will be impossible. Apart from the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan, no war has ever been won by the use of air power alone. It is significant but not decisive. Just look at Vietnam for evidence of this.

So why are we bothering? The nonsense about keeping us safer goes against all the commentary from people who have been close to Daesh. They want us to attack them because it provides a rallying call for more recruits. The majority of those recruits will be home-grown in the UK, thus increasing the chances of a terrorist attack in mainland Britain.

So, if it is strategically pointless and tactically what our enemies want us to do, why on earth are we doing it?

Simple. It’s an ego trip for David Cameron and his warmongering pals. It makes Britain look tough and allows him to claim a place at “the top table" when it comes to discussing how the Middle East should be treated. Note that there is very little interest in asking the people who live in the region what they want. The sad truth is that the UK Government still harbours a lingering fondness for the glory days of its imperial greatness and wants to throw its weight around to prove it is still a world power.

What our MPs voted for goes against what most of their constituents want but that didn’t stop them. It’s not about Syria, or terrorists, but about Britain’s prestige and that’s a truly awful condemnation of the decision.

So now we have an escalating war which Scotland’s people and MPs opposed but which we are involved in anyway. It probably isn’t the material change of circumstances Nicola Sturgeon warned about as a prerequisite for another IndieRef because we’ve been bombing Daesh for months in Iraq and this is merely an extension of Britain’s involvement, but it’s certainly another widening of the gulf between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Bloody Foreigners!

Posted on December 1st, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

An article published by the Guardian today suggests that George Osborn’s long term economic plan is dependent on net immigration continuing to rise. Without the increased number of foreigners coming to the UK and boosting the economy, his daft and illogical insistence on attaining a budget surplus looks difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

There are a few points to consider here. First of all, the Tories famously pledged to reduce immigration yet seem to be basing their long term economic plan on increasing it. Some might call that hypocrisy; others might call it merely another Tory U-turn. However, the forecast produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) does suggest that the majority of these immigrants will find work in the UK, which is also rather at odds with the media view, as espoused by UKIP and many Tories, that immigrants place a strain on our Social Security system because they are only coming here to claim Benefits.

The other thing to remember is that the OBR never get any forecasts correct. As the Guardian article points out, they have now increased their estimate of the amount of net immigration twice in the past eight months. And wouldn’t you know it, the last increase just so happened to be exactly the right number required to allow George Osborne to backtrack on his cuts to Working Tax Credits. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

What does all this tell us? Not much, except that it confirms the OBR are just another Tory institution and that the UK Government will use any tricks it can in order to mislead the public into thinking it actually has a viable economic policy. But we knew that already, didn’t we?

Syria Summarised

Posted on November 28th, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Few of us would claim to be experts on the Middle East but with David Cameron’s thirst for war in Syria, we really ought to try to understand what is going on out there. So here’s my attempt at unravelling the situation and explaining my understanding of it as simply as I can.

It all started with the Arab Spring, when various countries experienced revolutions which overthrew their incumbent dictators. Syria was no exception but President Assad reacted strongly and used military force against the rebels in his country.

Assad is an ally of Russia and so, by default, the USA wants rid of him. Accordingly, they funded and equipped some of the rebels

and began raising support for a bombing campaign against him. However, because Assad was backed by Russia, nobody was too keen to get involved quite so blatantly, so the USA resorted to making threats about bombing Assad if he used chemical weapons. There were a few attempts to prove that he had done so but the evidence was questionable at best. Fortunately for the USA, their desire to bomb somebody was given a boost by the actions of the group variously known as Islamic State, IS, ISIS, ISL or Daesh.

Daesh came to prominence after the US / UK invasion of Iraq when senior members of Iraq’s former military ruling class were ousted and looking for a way to oppose the western powers. Daesh quickly gathered followers and seized control of a large area of land in Iraq and Syria, also gaining control of several oilfields.

Daesh’s main enemies are actually other Muslims. Being extremely fundamental Sunni Muslims, they have carried out many attacks on their Shia opponents, killing thousands in the process. They have also been responsible for, or claimed credit for, terrorist attacks in other countries, including several in France. In addition, Daesh made a habit of capturing nationals of other countries and publicly beheading them. For these reasons, America quickly gained allies in their call for revenge bombing, with around a dozen countries, including Canada, France and Saudi Arabia, joining in, with the UK operating in areas outside Syria.

With me so far? We have Assad fighting rebels who are supported by the West and Daesh attacking everyone around them, with the West bombing Daesh while also providing funds and munitions for anti-Assad rebels.

If only it were that simple. Turkey, a country which has a habit of attempting to destabilise most of its neighbours, is ostensibly aiding the USA but it is also threatened by the Kurds who want to establish an independent Kurdistan. There are several Kurdish groups who, when not fighting one another, are actively engaged in fighting Daesh but also fight Turkey, carrying out some terrorist attacks there, according to Turkish media. For this reason, Turkey supports the anti-Assad rebels because they fight Assad and the Kurds but they also tacitly encourage Daesh because they are fighting the Kurds and because the Turks are governed by Sunni Muslims who have some sympathies for Daesh even though they are officially attempting to destroy them.

Enter the Russians. Things weren’t going too well for Assad, so he asked them to help him. They joined in, claiming they were fighting Daesh but actually bombing assad’s enemies who, although some of them are linked to Al Qaeda and therefore technically America’s enemies, are being supported by the USA. When America protested about the Russians bombing the wrong terrorists, the Russians then agreed to spend some time bombing Daesh and allegedly destroyed a convoy of oil transporters which were carrying oil Daesh hoped to sell to raise funds.

This annoyed Turkey because they have secretly been purchasing the oil from Daesh and didn’t like the Russians blowing up their cheap supplies. In retaliation, they shot down a Russian plane. Now, it must be said that the Russians have a long tradition of probing other countries’ airspace and the Turks were given an excuse for this action although they do appear to have been very willing to start world War Three with their trigger-happy response to an alleged seventeen-second incursion into Turkish airspace. There is still confusion over exactly what happened and whether any warnings were given to the Russian aeroplane but it is revealing that at least one of the crew was captured by Syrian rebels when he bailed out. He might have drifted, of course, or perhaps the Syrians had inadvertently invaded Turkey. We’ll probably never know the truth of the affair.

If you thought it was getting complicated, it grows worse. Daesh not only sell their oil to Turkey, they sell it to Assad, who is one of their enemies. This allows him to continue fighting the US-backed rebels who are also now being bombed by Russia.

As you can see, it’s a complete shambles out there and is further complicated by another source of funding and equipment which Daesh enjoy. Because they are fundamental Sunnis, they are backed and funded by Saudi Arabia which itself is governed by and promotes its own extremist form of Islam known as Wahhabism. For religious reasons, they covertly back Daesh because Daesh oppose Iran, the Saudi’s main concern in the region. But the Saudis are, of course, America’s closest ally in the Middle East and are also actively supported by the UK even though these two countries oppose the Saudis proxies, Daesh and even though the Saudi Air Force has been involved in bombing missions against Daesh because, ostensibly at least, they are cooperating with their US allies.

Honestly, you’d struggle to make this up, wouldn’t you?

This is the mess David Cameron wants the UK to become involved in by dropping yet more bombs, in defiance of the fact that the thousands of bombs already dropped have only served to make the problem worse. There is no clear strategy for peace in the area which must necessarily include the Kurds and Assad, if for no other reason that the former are the largest and most powerful ethnic group in the area and the latter is an ally of Russia who will not want to see him toppled. Eliminating Daesh will be virtually impossible without employing ground troops in large numbers anyway and even then, as our experiences in Afghanistan has amply demonstrated, there is no guarantee of imposing any sort of lasting peace, even if the major powers were to devise some sort of sensible strategy which, so far, they have totally failed to do.

There is obviously no simple answer to this crisis but dropping more bombs certainly isn’t going to help. Cutting off Daesh’s funding would be a start but that would require a significant change of stance by America, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, so it’s not likely to happen any time soon. Establishing an independent Kurdistan might also help ease tensions but Turkey is never going to agree to that so another route to peace has been effectively cut off.

So, in summary, America supports Al Qaeda rebels against Assad and opposes Daesh who are fighting Assad but supports Turkey and Saudi who covertly aid Daesh while cooperating with Russia in some bombing of Daesh but opposing them when they bomb Al Qaeda. This, of course, does not prevent the USA bombing Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan but that’s a different war. The Kurds, meanwhile, are fighting Daesh and Turkey, so the west supports them in some of their fighting but not in others. We do support Iraq which is also fighting Daesh and is a long-standing foe of Iran which supports Russia who, of course, are on our side when they bomb Daesh but not when they bomb Al Qaeda. Turkey remains a western ally so officially fights Daesh but actually supports them and opposes the Kurds while supplying Al Qaeda. Russia backs Assad so opposes Al Qaeda but also opposes Daesh and is now on poor terms with Turkey who, as a NATO member, is unfriendly to Russia but as a trading partner, relies on Russia for supplies of oil and gas. Saudi Arabia are western allies but support Daesh financially because Daesh oppose Iran and Assad, but the Saudis are also involved in bombing Daesh in order to keep in with America. As an aside, the Saudis also continue to wage war against Al Qaeda in Yemen where both the Saudis and Al Qaeda are fighting the houthis and a Daesh offshoot who are also fighting each other. Not wanting to be left out completely, the UK provides intelligence and military advice to Saudi Arabia in this little-reported war.

I hope that has cleared it up for you. If you can see a solution, please contact the UN.

Finally, in all this, we must not forget the refugees. It is no wonder people are fleeing Syria in vast numbers. Perhaps the UK could spend its money better by helping more of them rather than by dropping bombs on their country. Again, that’s not likely to happen because Cameron isn’t really fussy who he bombs, as his U-turn on his target from assad to Daesh clearly shows; he just wants to look tough to keep his right wing voters happy. Whatever else you can say about the man, anyone who adopts that sort of 19th Century gunboat diplomacy really shouldn’t be permitted to run a sweetie shop, let alone a country.

The Tale of Scotland Bill

Posted on November 27th, 2015

By Tcswim

This is the sad tale of Scotland Bill

Who voted Labour & voted NO, until

Working in the safe British HMRC

Scotland Bill was shocked to see

A wee letter saying ‘"we’re shutting down

Moving out to an English town

Moving out a Cumbernauld

Oh forget the lies that once we told

That was only politics

Just a few London dirty tricks

The Referendum we HAD to win

A few porky lies well a minor sin!

(After –all, a lie is not as big

As stickin your willie in a pig!)

Let’s get back to the letter

from the folk who promised you better!

“Sorry but you are now redundant

It had to be done, very urgent

Britain needs to help the wealthy

Work up there is not financially healthy

And we need cuts to stem the tide

So 800 get lost in East Kilbride

Move to London if you like

Take a bus get on your bike

We never said it would be all right

Better together was just a sound bite

We never promised you a better life

Just better together (like a divorced man n wife)

Promises & vows only lies, just silly

Tales. You didn’t believe them surely Billy!

London lies to fool Scots folk

All made up a pig n a poke, a Tory joke

Come on Billy did you believe?

Better together was MEANT to deceive

To pretend that London really cares

For Scotland Bill and folk up there

(Really Billy you are not Mayfair

And much too far from Trafalgar Square)

Quite frankly we don’t care a shit

It’s time for England to benefit

(England votes for English laws

We’ve got the jocks by the baws)

We’ll squeeze your ungrateful Sturgeon

A difficult Glaswegian woman!

We will give you a Bill to let you fail

More cuts & layoffs more in the mail

We are the Union we know the game

WE’ve now got Holyrood to BLAME!

Scotland Bill! We sold you a pup

SLAB & Tory stitched you up!

The Scotland Bill is hocus-pocus

The benefits are simply bogus

It’s a Bill that reeks of Judas.

Go bile yer heid we heard enough

Lets get Independence quick enough

Its time to educate & win the minds

Hearts & heads of every kind

You voted No last time?

YES, you can change your mind

Get your NO pals to vote SNP

It’s Your future, can you see

It’s the ONLY way

For Scotland to gain prosperity

To be rid of persistent poverty

To realize our history

To bring back our dignity

Pride in our country

From Shetland to Galloway

Listen you hear that word my friends

Softly from the bens & glens

Louder in the cities & the schemes

In your hearts & in your dreams

Hear It! Say it!

INDEPENDENCE is coming have no fear!

INDEPENDENCE work for it you hear!

Win more minds and win more souls

Win the vote that history stole

Listen it’s like a train

Here it comes again and again

Climb on board the INDEPENDENCE TRAIN

You got your ticket? Let me see!

You good! You are SNP!

Others tae must catch this train

We need the masses &

& all the classes

Folk that are angry

Folk that are hungry

Folk in business

On farms ‘n factory

Folk that work in public service

The Teacher, nurse, young apprentice

The TRAIN is now at your station

Destination the Scottish NATION

A Letter To Scotland

Posted on November 26th, 2015

Dear Scotland,

I am writing in response to your recent complaints about the customer service experience you feel has been less than satisfactory in your dealings with Westminster. As I understand it, your complaints concern our general attitude towards you and some specific instances where you believe you have been unfairly treated.

I should begin by pointing out that Westminster Parliaments have not altered their method of operation since the 17th Century. It seems incredible that you have failed to realise this when a simple look through Britain’s history would show that we never relinquish authority unless there is no alternative and that our tactics of dissembling, delay and grinding down of opposition have been retained right up to the present day.

I must say that I believe a large part of the current problem stems from your own actions. You were foolish enough to elect a Scottish Government which had long stated its intention to seek independence and you than chose to listen to its arguments in increasing numbers. However, I do not believe that you should blame Westminster for your ultimate decision to remain part of the UK since many of you chose to believe the promises and blatantly inaccurate claims of the Better Together campaign when it should have been evident that Westminster had no intention of keeping those promises.

Your subsequent decision to elect an overwhelming majority of SNP MPs to the house of Commons also appears utterly bizarre. I can only conclude that you somehow fell for the patently absurd notion that Scottish votes actually count at Westminster, an idea which I must point out was promulgated by Gordon Brown who was merely a backbench Labour MP at the time and so had no authority to promise anything. That you repeatedly fell for his brand of fabricated nonsense is not really the fault of the current Westminster Government.

Despite this, you claim some successes, notably in forcing a reversal of an earlier decision to impose cuts to Working Tax credits. In fact, this reversal was not due to your opposition since, with the assistance of our allies in the Labour Party, we were successful in winning the vote in the House of Commons. The fact that the House of Lords imposed a delay is a matter the Prime Minister will be taking steps to address to ensure that there are no repeats of this absurd situation where a bunch of unelected toffs can overrulle a democratically elected Government.

In any event, thanks to the Office For Budget Responsibility realising that the forecasts they made in July were complete rubbish, I have now been able to announce a change to the decision on Working Tax Credits. Your snide remarks that the OBR have not made a single accurate forecast in their entire existence is unhelpful. Using facts like that is clearly misguided since such esteemed entities such as the BBC, the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily express, the Sun and the Economist believe every word the OBR say and repeat it frequently in order to ensure that the citizens of the UK have access to information which supports my claims. The OBR may well come up with a completely different set of projections next year (or perhaps next week) but this will not affect my decision on Tax Credits since most members of the media appear to have completely missed the rather obvious point that these benefits will eventually be replaced by Universal Credit. This new Benefit will be paid at a rate which will ensure that the working classes receive far less Government assistance than they do now, although I should caveat this by pointing out that the computer system intended to operate Universal Credit is, in accordance with most Government system developments, significantly behind schedule and vastly in excess of budgeted costs. Still, we’ll get there in the end and there is nothing you can do about it.

I understand that you are also unhappy with the provisions of the new Scotland Bill. The fact that the members of the House of Lords have actually stayed awake long enough to realise that the entire fiscal process underpinning the proposed Bill is nonsense proves nothing at all and, as I mentioned earlier, we will be taking steps to nullify the powers of that assembly in due course. As things stand, the Scotland Bill will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. We have said this many times, so it must be correct. Your request for examples of other devolved Parliaments with which to compare Holyrood is mere semantics and can easily be refuted although I do not actually have the information to hand and will need to get back to you at some point in the future. If I remember.

Turning to your comments on economic policy, Westminster has a long term plan which is working. This is undeniable, since the media confirm it whenever we tell them to. You claim that there is an alternative way of operating since the austerity economic model is based on a mistake in a spreadsheet and that the majority of economists claim it is self-defeating. This must be a false assertion. I have several copies of The economist on my desk and reading the headlines of their articles confirms that the Westminster Government’s policies are correct. Your own ideas such as providing free prescriptions, free university tuition and free travel for the elderly are mere political bribes to a gullible populace who appear to believe that a Government which implements policies they approve of is a good Government. Your bribes are not at all comparable to the assistance we constantly provide to big businesses, the wealthy and pensioners. The fact that these are the people who consistently vote for us is, I can assure you, merely coincidence.

In essence, then, your claims are worthless. You had your chance to leave but, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you decided you would be better off if you remained part of the UK. That is hardly the fault of Westminster. Besides which, it is clear that Scotland could not cope as an independent country. Again, we have said this repeatedly and the media agree with us so it must be correct. Under the beneficent guidance of successive Westminster Governments, your industries such as steelworking and shipbuilding have collapsed, your power stations are closing down, your renewable industries are unable to develop without subsidy so much so that we have been forced to divert billions of pounds of subsidy into nuclear energy and to seek sources of alternative renewable power from countries such as Ireland and Norway. In addition, the broad shoulders of the UK have failed to protect jobs in steel, finance, retail, engineering, oil & gas, printing, construction, journalism and many other sectors. I refute your assertion that the payment of incentives to firms to close down their Scottish operations and move to England has anything to do with any of these. It is self-evident that investing money in English offices for the likes of HMRC is better for the country as a whole than maintaining similar centres in Scotland; no less an intellectual powerhouse than Boris Johnson has said so and who can argue with him?

What this boils down to is absolute proof that Scotland is an economic wasteland, unable to cope as an independent country. As such, your complaints against Westminster are unfounded and absolutely no compensation will be paid. In fact, Westminster’s policies will ensure that any compensation flows to us from you.

Please stop complaining. You voted for this.


Gideon Chancellor

Reviewing the Review

Posted on November 24th, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

So we’ve had another Strategic Defence & security Review. Well, it’s only right that the Government should keep one of its prime responsibilities under review, so no complaints there. What does seem odd, though, is that this review is reversing some of the decisions made as a result of the last one.

For example, having scrapped a fleet of maritime patrol aircraft, the Nimrods which were being updated to ensure they could meet modern requirements, we are now apparently going to purchase some converted American airliners which will now be capable of use as maritime patrol aircraft. So, instead of boosting British air industry, we’re supporting our allies. Great. But we do need these aircraft because we currently rely on Ireland and other NATO countries for maritime patrol. Fortunately, the Russians have cooperated in driving this change of policy by the UK Government by helpfully sending a submarine into Scottish waters on the very day that the SDSR was being announced. That’s international cooperation for you. The one thing missing from most news reports on this decision, though, is that it has allegedly cost over £3 billion. Many people warned that scrapping the Nimrod fleet was a bad idea and I suppose we should be grateful the UK Government has at last acknowledged their stupidity, if not their financial mismanagement.

Sticking with aerial matters, it seems the UK is purchasing yet more of the inordinately expensive F35 jets for our aircraft carriers. Britain has already paid out billions of dollars to help fund the development of these aircraft so it makes sense to benefit from that investment by actually using the aircraft. Except that there is a big problem with these planes, namely that they don’t work properly. F35 engines have a tendency to burst into flames at unexpected moments, a habit which caused the entire US fleet of these planes to be grounded last year and why only a dummy was perched on the deck of Britain’s new aircraft carrier when it was launched. And even if the engine problems are resolved, the F35 won’t be much use in combat since it doesn’t have working targeting software for its guns, so it can’t actually shoot at anything. Still, never mind, it can carry bombs so we’re fine for bombing Muslim countries, which is what Britain’s foreign policy seems to mostly consist of these days.

The other major aspect of the SDSR is the news that the number of frigates to be built on the Clyde is to be cut from the 13 promised during the IndieRef to only 8. Oh, well. Just another Better Together promise broken, a few thousand jobs at risk in the shipyards and a smaller conventional Navy than we were promised.

There’s not much to say about the extra money suddenly found to boost Special Forces and anti-terrorist units. The problem with decrying that expenditure is that the Government is very secretive about the terror plots it claims to have prevented. They may be right and the money might be well spent but there are a few well-informed commentators who claim that much of this is hyperbole which serves only to ensure the growth of the security industry and the grip on power of the Westminster Establishment.

But at least we’re getting to renew Trident. That ought to frighten the terrorists, not to mention Russian submarines.

A Cunning Plan

Posted on November 19th, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

The Westminster Parties have a cunning plan to bring Scotland back into the Unionist fold. Actually, it’s not all that cunning and it has all the hallmarks of one of Baldrick’s ideas from Blackadder because it contains the seeds of its own failure.

Here’s how it’s supposed to work according to Westminster thinking. What they do is impose draconian cuts to the Scottish budget and to social welfare payments, thus forcing the Scottish Government either to use money it doesn’t really have to counter the effects of the cuts or to allow the cuts to go through, thus affecting the lives of thousands of people living in Scotland. Either way, the Scottish Government can be painted as failing in its duty of care.

“Use your powers!" the Unionists cry, knowing full well that none of the new powers have yet come into force and, even when they do, they are designed so that it will be ordinary Scots who end up paying more, thus providing yet another opportunity for Westminster and their pet media to point the finger and proclaim SNP policies a failure.

“We told you," they will gloat. “An independent Scotland would be a place where everyone pays more tax. This proves it."

It proves nothing of the sort, of course, since an independent Scotland would have power over far more sources of revenue than Income tax alone and would not have a cap on its income as is currently the case.

However, the media attacks continue unabated and Labour are acting as the Tories’ loyal allies in backing the cuts to Tax credits solely in order to damage the SNP. Gordon Brown, who continues to be one of the Tories’ chief stooges, has said that the SNP must either counter the Tax credit cuts or back them. This is, as usual with Brown, arrant nonsense. The SNP are not backing these cuts in any shape or form. It is perfectly possible to oppose a Government policy and yet be unable to do anything to counter it effectively but I suppose you can’t expect a Labour politician to understand what opposition means.

The reason the Tories and Labour are doing this is clear. Eventually, they believe, Scotland will become the economic basket case they have always intended it to be. The Scottish Government will run out of money, services will be slashed and the voters will see sense, electing a Unionist Party to govern at Holyrood. For Westminster purposes, it does not matter whether that Party is Labour or Conservative, as long as it is a loyal Unionist Party. It seems unlikely that they would go as far as forming a Tory / Labour coalition because that would reveal the true extent of their duplicity but nothing can be entirely ruled out. Whichever Party takes over, though, the normal order of things will have been restored, the Scottish block grant can be increased just enough to make some small improvements and Scotland will have been saved once again by the broad shoulders of the union.

It might be slightly more cunning than one of Baldrick’s plans but the indications so far are that Westminster has made one big miscalculation. The latest polls confirm that the Scottish electorate can see right through it. Indeed, only the over-65’s appear dead set against the SNP, a fact which can perhaps be explained by two factors. First, that this generation (or should that be genertaion?) were raised on a diet of British greatness and are unable to throw off their loyalty, and, secondly, that this generation is less likely to access information from alternative sources and so still believe the propaganda thrown at them by the media. All other age groups seem undeterred by the spin and SNP-bashing that is a regular feature of TV, radio and newspaper reporting.

But how can this plan be defeated? Electing another SNP Government at Holyrood won’t stop the cuts and, as we have seen, even electing an overwhelming majority of SNP MPs to Westminster isn’t enough to prevent Scotland being punished for having the temerity to voice a desire to leave the UK.

Which leaves only one option and it’s the one the Unionists seem unable to grasp. Fixated on the result of last year’s IndieRef, they continue to believe that a majority of Scots want to remain in the Union. They appear to have forgotten that the majority of Scots wanted Devo Max and that, by failing to provide this despite their promises, they are forcing more and more people towards the conclusion that full independence is the only way Scotland will ever flourish.

I must admit that I have always maintained we missed our chance last year and that a second IndieRef would not happen for many years. What I failed to take into account was just how vindictive and short-sighted the Westminster Establishment is. By following their cunning plan, they are driving us ever closer to independence and it is now more a question of how much damage will be done to Scotland before enough Scottish voters reach the inevitable conclusion. The signs are that it will not take long. The latest IPSOS MORI poll on independence puts support for a Yes vote at 53%, not far short of the so-called “Decisive" result in the IndieRef which condemned us to Tory rule. One poll does not mean a lot but it is an indication that the Baldricks of Westminster have screwed up their calculations.

The Wrong Answer

Posted on November 16th, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

There’s nothing very much anyone can say about the horrors that took place in Paris. It has, quite rightly, dominated the news over the weekend. But, as efforts to identify both victims and killers continue, attention on the political front turns to what reaction the West will make. Sadly, this is all too predictable.

The French Air Force has already undertaken further bombing raids and there are calls for the UK to join in. It seems likely that David Cameron will get his wish and be given authority to bomb Islamic State in Syria. While this reaction is understandable because revenge is a basic human instinct, resorting to this sort of violence is not going to solve the problem. The war on Terror has been going on for fourteen years now and bombing doesn’t seem to have made things any better so far. Surely it must be time for a re-think?

It is easy to pontificate, of course. The problem is apparent and the cause – Western imperialist attitudes and interference going back over a century – undeniable. The solution, however, is far from simple.

The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to negotiate with religious fundamentalists like Islamic State, or Daesh, or whatever you want to call them. Violence is their first and only response to every situation. Yet responding with violence isn’t going to eliminate them; it only escalates the conflict and gives them more recruits.

As I say, the answer isn’t easy but perhaps it is time the Western powers took a serious look at their policies in the Middle East. If bombing won’t solve the problem, perhaps cutting off resources might. It’s a bit like the debate over gun control in the USA. Every week sees another shooting of innocent civilians and gun lobbyists in America think providing more guns for people to defend themselves is the answer when, in fact, looking at other countries where guns are banned clearly demonstrates that removing access to firearms reduces the cost in human lives. It doesn’t prevent violence, of course. Every country has its violent citizens as any perusal of newspapers on a Monday morning will show as weekend fights and stabbings are reported, but it does diminish the scale and effect of such violence.

So it could be with Islamic State. Cutting off their funding and access to resources would reduce their capability to carry out atrocities. And here, the West is complicit. It is a more or less open secret that Saudi Arabia is supplying and funding Islamic State because it wishes to keep the region unstable to prevent the Iranian form of Islam gaining supremacy in the region rather than its own Wahhabi sect. And the Saudis are backed by the UK and USA. If we cut that funding, the threat of Islamic State would be significantly reduced. Cutting direct CIA and MI5 backing for other terrorist groups in Syria would also reduce the effect of the current conflict and might go a little way to stemming the flow of refugees.

On that Point, the rush to link refugees with the terrorists is appalling. Some people seem incapable of understanding that the Paris killers are the very sort of thugs the refugees are fleeing from. Indeed, our media is virtually silent on the bombings and shootings that are a regular feature of life in places like Yemen, Lebanon and Syria.

The solution is not to block the refugees but to attempt to resolve the conflict in their home country so that they can return there in peace. That may sound idealistic but surely it is better to attempt to find a peaceful solution rather than resort to a bombing campaign which is doomed to fail.

Sadly, this won’t happen. The War on Terror suits the neo-liberal, right wing agenda. It makes politicians look tough and decisive and it provides them with the perfect excuse to impose restrictions on their own citizens. Authoritarianism requires control and that is precisely what the terrorist attacks provide. Under the guise and banners of protecting freedom, our freedoms are slowly being eroded.

Of course, we need to defend ourselves against violent attacks but there is a big difference between using force to defend yourself and using aggressive force to attack others. Unfortunately, those who control Western societies are firm believers in the mantra that the best form of defence is attack, despite all the evidence which shows that their attacks have been having precisely the opposite effect to the one they claim to be seeking. It’s enough to make you weep, if you weren’t already weeping for the tragic loss of life in Paris.

Scotland Bull

Posted on November 10th, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Anyone who tuned in to Parliament TV last night to watch the debate on the Scotland Bill saw Westminster at its finest. In fact, the spectacle was so revealing that some online commentators suggested that the SNP should simply make every person in Scotland watch a recording of the entire debate and so ensure that Scotland becomes independent immediately. The contempt for Scotland was evident in every word spoken by the Unionist MPs, by every facial expression and every farmyard braying noise they uttered although, to be fair, this noise was not particularly loud since the Lib Dems could not be bothered to turn up at all and the Labour and Tory benches were packed with as many as hardly any MPs. When those few souls did stand up to speak in the debate, they spent most of their time talking about English Votes for English Laws.

It all changed when it came time to vote, of course. Then, miraculously summoned to vote on something they hadn’t bothered to listen to, Tory MPs arrived in their hundreds to march through the lobby voting down every change the SNP had asked for. Labour, to be fair, only really voted against giving Holyrood the right to control Tax Credits, a hypocritical stance given the hullaballoo Kezia Dugdale and her cronies have been making over Tax credits but that’s Labour for you. On the rest of the issues under discussion, Labour adopted their usual position of abstaining.

So it was that Scotland was graciously granted power over Road Signs but denied any control over things like Tax Credits, Human Rights, and Gender Equality legislation.

The entire thing was a farce. Scotland was denigrated and derided at every opportunity, so much so that Angus Robertson, SNP leader in the Commons, was unable to finish his summing up speech because the Speaker cut him off in mid-sentence, presumably because the Unionist MPs had run out of insults and wanted to go home.

Naturally, we will now see Unionist MPs proclaiming that the Vow has been delivered yet again. That Vow has now been delivered so many times it’s beginning to resemble a pile of junk mail being shoved through Scotland’s metaphoric letterbox.

It’s not all over yet, though. The House of Lords, that bastion of democracy, has still to go over the Bill and approve it. Not that anyone with any sense is expecting them to reject or even slightly amend it but the Bill is not yet law and so absolutely nothing has been delivered yet, not even the power to design Road Signs with Saltires on them.

Did U-Turn?

Posted on November 9th, 2015

By Wee Hamish

The SNP have made a humiliating U-turn. Who says so? Scottish Labour and the Scottish media, so it must be right then, mustn’t it? They wouldn’t lie to us, would they?

But hang on, what is this humiliating and embarrassing U-turn? It’s to do with Tax Credit cuts. The SNP said they had no power to reverse the cuts which (shock! Horror!) was actually true because the proposed Scotland Bill gave them no authority to do anything with the reserved areas of Welfare. It would have been the Bedroom Tax all over again, with the Scottish Government having to beg Westminster for the right to offset the cuts.

Then Viceroy Fluffy, David Mundell, announced proposed changes to the Scotland Bill and these included the right for the Scottish Government to set up new social security payments. That’s when the SNP said they could do something after all.

It’s not really a U-turn, is it? A u-turn is when you change your mind simply because you realise you were wrong once people start protesting. A U-turn isn’t changing your mind when you learn that the facts on which you based your original decision have been altered.

Not that this will prevent the media from banging on about the embarrassment and humiliation of a U-turn because that’s what the Scottish media do. What they’re not saying is that the power to make additional payments is not quite the same as having the power to reverse the Tax Credit cuts. It’s not the same at all, because there are rumours that any additional payments the Scottish Government makes could be regarded as extra income by those lovely people at the DWP and so will mean a further reduction in Tax credit payments.

On top of all that, the Scottish Government has no administration system in place which would let it make the payments in the first place.

And where is it supposed to find the money? Labour and their media pets keep asking if the SNP will reverse the cuts in full which is stupid because we don’t yet know the full extent of the cuts.

But the worst thing about this whole media circus is that Scottish Labour are playing politics simply so they can bash the SNP. The media, naturally, are joining in because they see it as their job to run down the SNP at every opportunity.

What they are missing is the biggest point of the whole thing. It’s that these problems were created by the Tories in Westminster and allowed to pass by the spineless refusal of UK Labour to oppose them. Now, both Tories and Labour in Holyrood are whining and pointing fingers at the SNP and claiming it is all their fault. Maybe that’s what they meant when they said they were Better Together. Better at joining forces to keep Scotland under Westminster’s thumb, better at ganging up on the Party a majority of Scots support, better at behaving like spoilt kids in a playground rammy.

The sad thing is, I’ve heard a lot of people who believe this guff. The media are pushing it for all it is worth because it’s a great chance to put the SNP on the spot over an issue they did not cause. It’s a bit like blaming the paramedics when someone dies after a terrorist attack because they ran out of bandages because of the sheer number of casualties. That’s the way Scottish Labour think and how the newspapers and the BBC misrepresent the truth in order to attack the SNP. I, for one, hope that the Scottish voters see through this pathetic stunt for what it is and hurt both Labour and the Tories next year by kicking them where it hurts the most – in the ballot boxes.

Poppy Dilemma

Posted on November 8th, 2015

By Blind Pew

I’ve always supported the Poppy Appeal. I had several reasons for this. First, having studied history in general and World War 1 in particular, I have always been appalled at the cost in human lives that this conflict brought about, especially because the reasons for the war were little more than the conflicting ambitions of colonial European rulers.

The Second World War, certainly more justifiable from Britain’s perspective, resulted in even greater loss of life, among civilians as well as combatants. Such waste needed to be commemorated, if only to serve as a reminder of the horrors of war.

Another reason was more personal. My father served during World War 2 and was severely wounded. When he was eventually discharged, he was classified as disabled but the help he received from the UK Government was minimal at best. That’s one reason why I always thought the Poppy Appeal was important because Britain has a long and not so proud history of discarding its ex-service personnel and tossing them on the scrapheap rather than welcoming them into its much lauded “Land Fit For Heroes".

Some might argue that the passing of time means that the funds raised by the Poppy Appeal are going to men and women who have fought in less worthy wars but I do not subscribe to this view. It is politicians who declare wars, not soldiers. The men and women of the Armed Forces have no say in when or where they will fight and if some of the wars Britain has engaged in over the years have been morally dubious, that is not the fault of the front line combatants. For those who return with physical or mental wounds, the Poppy Appeal must be great help.

But recent years have made me think twice about giving unswerving support to this Appeal. That’s not because the cause of helping injured veterans is any less valid but because the symbol of the Poppy has come to mean something that is at odds with one of my principal reasons for donating every year.

Symbols are important but they can be appropriated and used to represent something quite at odds with their original meaning. The most notorious example is the swastika which used to be a good luck symbol until it was appropriated by the Nazis. The Poppy obviously hasn’t gone that far but in recent years it has come to represent the glorification of war rather than the commemoration of loss. Poppies are painted on warplanes, refusal to wear one is seen as unpatriotic, T-shirts are issued to children with legends proclaiming their intention to join the armed Forces and have a Poppy emblazoned on them. The Royal British Legion, who run the appeal, have links with Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest arms manufacturer which must be one of the most distorted world views imaginable. The message of the Poppy is not so much, “Let us remember so that it never happens again" but “Keep contributing because it is most definitely going to happen again and more lives will be blighted and require help".

I’ve never been a great one for attending ceremonies. I prefer to remember in my own way and not just on one day a year but every day. This year, I’ve put some money in a Poppy Appeal box but won’t be wearing the Poppy itself. That’s a sort of a compromise but I’m not convinced it is the right one. I expect I shall still be in a quandary next year but one thing I am certain of is that I will not wear a Poppy so long as the UK Government uses it as a symbol of militaristic pride.

Political Games

Posted on November 5th, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

So the Vow has been / Is being / will be delivered by the Scotland Bill. Not that it would be difficult to claim this since the Vow didn’t actually promise anything very much at all although it is noticeably undelivered in one major aspect – that of timing. If Scotland had voted Yes, we would have been a normal country from March, 2016 but most of the safer, faster powers the Scotland Bill will bring us will not be effective until April, 2017. If anyone can explain how that is faster, I’d be interested to understand.

But we must respect the democratic decision of the Scottish people and the majority voted to remain part of the UK. What remains a mystery is why so many people remain so loyal / frightened / uncertain / gullible that they still cannot see what is being done to Scotland as a result of that vote.

Before the IndieRef, Yes campaigners warned that Scotland would be punished for having the temerity to argue for the right to become a normal country. That warning has, sadly, been fulfilled. The Tories have gone out of their way to punish all Scots, not just those who voted Yes. Whether it is through the cancellation of subsidies for renewable energy, an unwillingness to support the steel industry, the reduction in the Scottish block grant, the forced closure of power stations, or the bribing of Youngs to close their Fraserburgh factory in favour of transferring work to Grimsby, the people of Scotland are being deliberately targeted in a systematic policy of ensuring that we become even more of an economic basketcase so that Westminster can continue to trumpet the need for us to remain within the Union because we are too small and too poor to be independent. It is galling that so many Proud Scots still believe this warped view of their own country and seem unable to see that they are suffering as much as anyone because Westminster simply does not care about them.

But the Scotland Bill is the worst punishment of them all. Far from being intended to provide additional powers to bring us as near to Federalism as possible, it is designed solely as a tool with which to damage the SNP. There is a massive trap and it’s poorly concealed although the Scottish media are doing their best to distract us from it. But it’s a big one and it is called Income Tax.

The cry David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, is making is that the Scottish Government should use its tax powers to mitigate the effects of the Tories own attacks on the poorest people in society. This is quite shocking, since it is virtually an open admission that the Tories are engaged in class warfare but you only need to watch Prime Minister’s Questions on Parliament TV to see hundreds of Tory MPs laughing loudly whenever anyone mentions cuts to tax credits or other Social Security benefits. These people really are the epitome of the neo-liberal mindset that greed and self-interest are moral values to be proud of.

But, you may ask, where is this trap? Why can’t the Scottish Government put our money where its mouth is and increase income tax to offset the Tory cuts? Well, it’s no coincidence that it is Income Tax that the Scottish Government is being given limited powers over. Governments in normal countries have full powers over a variety of levers if they wish to increase their revenues. For example, the list includes Capital Gains Tax, Corporation Tax, Land & Buildings Transaction Tax, Value Added Tax, Inheritance Tax, Import and Export duties, Fuel Duty and Alcohol Duty to name but a few. Admittedly, raising some of these would disproportionately hurt the poorest in society but the point is that normal Governments have a range of tools at their disposal. Some might even argue that lowering Corporation Tax to encourage businesses to locate in Scotland would actually increase the Government’s tax revenue as a result of the new jobs it would create.

But the Scottish Government has no power to do any of this. All it will eventually be able to do is increase Income Tax, the most visible of all taxes. The Scottish media are already primed to launch their attacks if this happens and will no doubt be believed by Proud Scots who have been conditioned by decades of neo-liberal propaganda to believe that high taxes are bad because, you know, greed and self-interest are more important than living in a decent society that tries to look after all its citizens, but which might mean most of us contributing a little more of our income in taxes. If the Scottish Government goes down this route, the media will crucify them but if they do nothing to offset the Tory cuts, the media will crucify them.

That’s why the Tories have called the SNP’s bluff and, if latest news reports are to be believed, have agreed to allow the Scottish Government the power to control Tax credits. This might sound good but it is utterly useless without the resources to replace the money the recipients are going to lose. The Scottish Government has neither the technical systems to administer such a scheme nor the money to cover the cuts unless it makes swingeing reductions in public spending elsewhere or raises Income Tax significantly.

The big moral question is why any Scottish Government should need to do this simply in order to mitigate the anti-social policies of Westminster. Perhaps that’s a question Proud Scots who voted NO could answer. As for the practical question of what the Scottish Government can do, they are in a no win situation until enough of the loyal / frightened / uncertain / gullible wake up and realise that independence from Westminster is the only viable route Scotland can take.

The worst part of all this is that the Tories are playing politics for selfish, short-term goals and it is real people who will suffer the vindictiveness of their attacks on the working poor, the disabled and the unemployed.

As an irritating afterthought, one might ask whether there is any hope to found in a resurgent Labour Party. The short answer is no. Jeremy Corbyn is just another Unionist with little knowledge of, nor interest in, Scotland. His leader in Scotland, Kezia Dugdale, is nothing more than an opportunist, as evidenced by her Twitter feed last night when she crowed that not a single SNP MSP stood up to explain how cutting Air Passenger Duty would help offset the Tax credit cuts she insists her Party would reverse even though they have neither the technical nor financial resources to do so. Of course, the reason nobody explained this was because it is such a moronic argument. Anyone who believes there is a direct link between Air Passenger Duty and Tax Credits really shouldn’t be allowed to hold political office of any sort. But, like her Tory allies, Kezia Dugdale is playing at politics with no heed for the actual harm the Tories are doing to Scotland. She believes we are Better Together but then gloats when a hamstrung Scottish Government is unable to combat the harmful Tory policies she fought so hard to keep us in thrall to.

I wish I could put a positive spin on all this and suggest a way forward but, quite frankly, I can’t see one. Let’s hope Nicola Sturgeon and her colleagues can produce the magic wand Labour seem to think they possess. I have no doubt the SNP will do their best but, thanks to the votes of the Proud Scots last year, their options are severely limited. In any event, it will be at least an entire year before the Scottish Government has the legal authority to do anything to offset the cuts which are due to come into effect next April. And that assumes they can somehow manage to build an IT system to administer the required payments. A week may be a long time in politics but a whole year with thousands of pounds taken away from your income will feel like an eternity for thousands of people.

The harsh truth is that if you voted NO in the IndieRef, you bear some of the responsibility for this state of affairs. That is not an attempt to point the finger and apportion blame in a smug way but to try to make you understand that you made a mistake and that there is only one way to rectify it. The sooner a majority of Scots supports independence, the better for all of us. The loyal Unionists will never change their minds but the frightened / uncertain / gullible must surely see that there is more to fear from remaining part of a dysfunctional UK than standing on our own feet like a normal country. It won’t solve all society’s problems because every country has problems but it would remove us from the vindictive impositions of a Westminster elite which is determined to crush any resistance to its hegemony. It would be the first step on the ladder towards a more fair and prosperous Scotland and the sooner we take that step, the better.

On Status Symbols

Posted on November 2nd, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Labour’s muddled and inconsistent position on Trident has been well documented by others but some of our contributors have made some valid points which I thought I’d try to summarise here just so we are all clear on what is happening.

Labour, it must be remembered, spent two years campaigning to keep control of all decisions on Defence at Westminster. The vote at their Scottish Conference is therefore meaningless. While it puts their MSPs and solitary MP in a difficult position and should provide us with plenty of laughs as Kezia Dugdale and Jackie Baillie, both of whom are ardent supporters of Trident, try to realign themselves with their Party membership’s new decision, it really doesn’t matter because it is UK Labour who call the shots and they are in favour of renewing Trident. Whether that position alters between now and when the vote on spending the money is taken is anybody’s guess.

But, as for Scottish Labour, their much-trumpeted reason for retaining Trident was the fact that so many jobs relied on it. Putting aside the fact that Jackie Baillie has put forward some very dodgy statistics on just how many local jobs rely on the Faslane base, the very argument itself must surely be challenged. Are we really saying that a few thousand jobs are worth keeping simply in order to maintain a first strike Armageddon weapons system which, if used, could trigger the end of the world and, if not used, could still result in a catastrophic accident that would virtually wipe out Scotland’s largest centre of population? Is that really a justifiable argument from a moral perspective? To look at a similar case from a couple of hundred years ago, should the slave trade have been maintained in order to preserve the jobs of the slave traders, ship’s crews who transported slaves from Africa and the manufacturers of iron shackles? The idea is preposterous but the case for Trident is even more ridiculous on moral grounds, let alone practical ones.

Trident is a status symbol; nothing more, nothing less. The UK could not and would not launch a nuclear attack without America’s say so. It is a colossal waste of money simply in order to maintain prestige. As for Labour’s idea that multilateral disarmament is preferable, that is the sort of delusional thinking that the phrase, “Fantasy politics" could have been made for. Russia and the USA are never going to disarm their nuclear weapons. Whether Britain does so or not will not make the slightest bit of difference except that becoming a non-nuclear country and making a great show of that might just persuade other countries that we are making some effort to rid ourselvesof the perception that we are imperialistic warmongers.

The simple fact is that, without the vast resources of the Empire to bolster the UK’s finances and with the annihilation of our manufacturing industries over the past decades, Britain cannot afford the enormous cost of its favourite status symbol. Spending billions on renewing Trident would be folly when there are so many British citizens living in poverty. That’s the bottom line and it is sad that Labour politicians in Scotland need to be reminded of it by their rank and file members.

Off Target

Posted on October 28th, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Would you like to lose some weight before Christmas? There are still a few weeks to go and, if you aimed to lose two or three pounds each week, you could realistically expect to lose a stone by Christmas. There’s a target for you. It’s challenging but possible. It would mean cutting down your food intake, eating healthily and taking plenty of vigorous exercise but you could do it.

Of course, there is rarely a good time of year for dieting. Life tends to get in the way and present such obstacles as birthday celebrations involving cake, lunch dates, evenings out and just the odd occasion when you really, really want that burger, packet of crisps or bar of chocolate. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say you tried to lose that stone and made a good effort at it. How would you feel if, come Christmas Eve, you stand on the scales and have lost twelve pounds? (For the metrically minded among you, say you’ve lost 5.5kg out of a target of 6.5kg).

Have you failed? Technically, yes, because you didn’t hit your target. But you still lost a good deal of weight and proved you could more or less stick to the self-imposed regime. That’s the problem with targets, you see. They are often fairly arbitrary constructs designed simply to encourage a certain behaviour change. Whether you actually hit them or not is often not the point although that would obviously be an ideal. But in the weight loss example, why impose Christmas as a deadline? It’s an obvious choice because of the expected overindulgence but you could equally set yourself the target of losing two stones by the end of February, taking account of some excesses during the Christmas break and coming close to achieving the second target would be an achievement in itself because, unlike targets, actual achievements are real, tangible things.

So it is with the targets for reduction in carbon emissions set by the Scottish Government. The latest figures reveal that the target has been missed for the fourth year in a row and Patrick Harvie, Green MSP, has been expressing his concern over the failure. He is quite right to do this because it is his job to keep pressure on the Scottish Government but the story has, as usual, allowed the Scottish media to produce yet more #SNPBad stories over failure to achieve targets. But while the politicians squabble over the reasons for the failure, it remains true that Scotland’s carbon emissions are reducing, just not as quickly as the Government had hoped. As with other areas such as NHS waiting times and monitoring of school pupil performance, the Scottish Government has set itself very challenging targets. This is only right because setting easy targets defeats their purpose. If the effect of those targets is to improve things overall, then failing to regularly achieve them is not a complete failure in the way that the media likes to portray them.

WE must, of course, be wary of targets. They can be useful but they can also be harmful. For example, the setting of targets for staff working in the financial industry was a major contributor to the culture of taking short cuts in order to achieve short term goals and thus earn individual bonuses at the risk of less spectacular but steady and sustainable growth.

Targets need to be challenging but realistically achievable. They also need to have a purpose. The purpose is not merely to hit a target but to encourage a cultural shift in behaviour patterns in order to bring about lasting improvements in whatever field they are used. Setting arbitrary and nonsensical targets simply in order to appease public opinion is, sadly, all too common in politics. Examples include David Cameron’s assertion that immigration would be cut to “tens of thousands" in apparent ignorance of the fact that the UK cannot control migration from within the EU. If you cannot possibly control something, setting a target to control it is simply absurd.

So let us by all means maintain pressure on the Scottish Government to achieve their targets where those targets are sensible in their aim of improving things but let us also acknowledge that missing a target does not necessarily mean that your entire policy is a failure.

EVEL Plans

Posted on October 24th, 2015

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

EVEL, the English Votes for English Laws legislation, has exercised a great deal of comment in political circles over the past couple of days. Much of this is spin, because the practical impact is not that great. If you want to read a summary of how it works in practice, check out Lallands Peat worrier’s excellent blog article at:

However, while the estimable LPW has pointed out that things are not as politicians are portraying them, that has not stopped the Scottish media putting their own spin on things, with the BBC at the forefront as usual. Their presenters have consistently stated that the EVEL rules mean that SNP MPs are now second class MPs. In fact, of course, this rule applies to all non-English MPs, no matter which Party they belong to. It is not just the SNP who are affected. Perhaps the most favourable interpretation we can place on the BBC’s stance is that their news reporters are irredeemably stupid and do not understand the basic facts behind the news they are presentin, because the alternative is that they are deliberately misleading the public, and we all know the BBC would never do that.

It doesn’t stop there, of course. Many Labour-voting pundits have tried to defend EVEL as only fair, apparently in ignorance of one of its main effects, which is to effectively render Scottish Labour redundant in UK terms.

How so? Well, as Lallands Peat Worrier has pointed out, any future Labour Government at Westminster cannot rely on its Scottish MPs to form its majority because those MPs would be excluded from the Veto stage of any English-only legislation the Government tried to push through. A Labour Government would need to have a majority of English MPs to have a chance of passing new laws without risk of defeat. Its Scottish MPs are, in that case, most definitely second class and, as far as Labour are concerned, must be regarded as superfluous when it comes to targeting electoral seats in the next General Election.

The same applies to all parties, of course, but the Liberal Democrats are never going to form a Government at Westminster and the Tories wrote Scotland off a long time ago, recognising that their core support is based in England. Perhaps Scottish Labour have realised this, thus explaining their reticence on the subject so far but many of their supporters don’t seem to have twigged it yet. They probably need some time to work it out.

Aside from marginalising Scottish Labour, EVEL has a rather low practical effect. This is because very few Bills can truly be regarded as affecting only England and because, even if such a Bill passes the English Veto stage and Scottish MPs are permitted to engage in the final debate and vote, the Tories can still push the legislation through because they have an absolute majority in the House of Commons. As we have seen from many analyses of Westminster votes, Scottish MPs very rarely affect the outcome of any vote because of their relatively small number. This was what lay at the heart of the Scottish independence movement in the first place but Scottish voters were persuaded that having their country governed by English Tories was preferable to governing themselves, so we are stuck with the democratic deficit whether we like it or not.

Having said all that, there is another, perhaps more significant aspect to EVEL. It is the symbolic effect.

With all due respect to Lallands Peat Worrier, we cannot ignore the symbolism here. Symbols are important; people respond to them and identify with them. This is why supporters of sporting teams wear their team’s colours, why people dress up to look like their music and celebrity favourites, why teenagers put posters on their walls, why manufactureres put their badges and logos on their goods and products, and why countries have a national flag for people to wave when they want to confirm their identity and support.

But what is the symbolism of EVEL? It is most certainly that Scottish MPs are second class in their own UK Parliament. This is the line the Tories have pushed because they want to appeal to their core English electorate and it is the angle the SNP have pushed because it suits their grievance agenda. It is also the line which will, eventually, backfire on the Tories.

Remember last year when Scots were urged not to leave the UK but to lead it? Then the SNP won a landslide in Scottish seats and the rhetoric became very different indeed. During the EVEL debate, one Tory MP told them to get on a plane and go home. This sort of overt racism is what Tory supporters in England like to hear and it’s exactly what the Tory Party are giving them.

At this point, I must mention MPs from Wales and Northern Ireland because they are affected too, even though nobody seems to be talking about them. The problem is that the Tories are behaving like playground bullies, strutting and posing, and shoving people around as it suits them. Welsh MPs are ignored as irrelevant and those Northern Irish MPs who take up their seats are such staunch supporters of the Union that the Tories feel they can heap any indignity on them without fear of complaint and so treat them as expendable allies.

But let’s get back to Scotland. After the IndieRef, David Cameron showed his true colours by immediately announcing his EVEL plans because constitutional change needed to run in tandem if al parts of the UK were to be treated fairly. Fine sounding words but, as so often, they were lies. England now has its constitutional change while the Scotland Bill is still being talked about and, even when it does eventually become law will offer Scotland very little real change.

Scotland, in other words, has been shafted and this is why the symbolic effect of EVEL only adds fuel to the SNP, the main reason why they are up in arms about it. It allows them to promote the idea that Westminster is, first and foremost, an English Parliament and that it cares little for what happens in Scotland. Even those who voted No in the IndieRef are now faced with the knowledge that their democratically elected MP is viewed by the House of Commons as less important than English MPs.

Nobody can deny that the infamous West Lothian Question needs an answer but the correct way to go about providing a solution would be for all four nations within the Union to have their own devolved Parliament, with each having the same powers, while Westminster provided over-arching control of UK issues for all four. That would be fair and equitable but Westminster is jealous of its power and will not relinquish its authority unless it has no choice. What the Tories have done is implement a botched, mess of an idea simply in order to achieve the short term political goals of hamstringing Labour and marginalising the SNP. While they may well have succeeded in the first of those aims, the second one will only serve to inflame the feeling that Scots are despised by Westminster. It plays into the hands of the SNP because, whatever the practical limitations of EVEL, it is the perception which will count with the electorate and the perception is very much that Scottish MPs and, by extension, the people they represent, are second class citizens. Any Government that treats its people that way is going to find itself in trouble the next time those voters go to the ballot box.

The RBS who actually cares about Scotland.  If at first you don't secede, try, try again.

Rab Bruce's Spider is a collaborative blog site where individuals who support Scottish Independence can express their views. If you would like to contribute, please email your suggested article to